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

[Bun]

...and?

The Butterfly effect....

 

[Uppercut]

Exactly. Matches and series between reasonably closely-matched teams can swing on ultra-fine margins which the teams involved have little or no control over. Which makes me dubious when someone expresses a particularly high degree of certainty over the result of one.

TBF he's since explained it somewhat, but even so.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah, it's at home so he gets the Magical Home Pitch Effect and the ball gains 10kph and swings 10 extra inches cause he's Indian. So it doesn't count.

Not even remotely what I suggested and I expect better from you.

Yeah, that's what I said.

That's exactly what the implication is when people say something like 'it's expected because it's at home.'


The fact is certain conditions suit certain bowlers, and English conditions suit bowlers more than Indian ones. People like Zaheer prefer wickets in England, people like Johnson wickets in SA and Australia (obviously there are flat wickets everywhere unfortunately but when they're not) Regardless of whose home it is, it's ludicrous not to give credit to fast bowlers in India, or batsmen who do well in swinging conditions in England.

It's a ridiculous double standard and completely unfair otherwise.

 

[Furball]

That's exactly what the implication is when people say something like 'it's expected because it's at home.'


The fact is certain conditions suit certain bowlers, and English conditions suit bowlers more than Indian ones. Regardless of whose home it is, it's ludicrous not to give credit to fast bowlers in India, or batsmen who do well in swinging conditions in England.

It's a ridiculous double standard and completely unfair otherwise.

No it isn't. You should expect bowlers to be able to bowl competently at home.

I actually think Zaheer deserves more credit for being good in England and South Africa, because they're foreign conditions for him and he's had to adapt his game to be a success in those countries. What I disagree with is the implication that Zaheer's year average of 23 is better than Anderson's because Zaheer bowled most of it in India.

 

[Bun]

I was only pointing out the fallacy of using 'what ifs' to judge past performances. Past results are past. It's pointless to argue that a more alert umpire would've meant that Australia might have won the first test, or India might have won or drawn in Sydney 08, or England would've lost emphatically 3-1 in South Africa etc etc.

People mention how Stuart Broad has been instrumental in making the English attack formidable without having the numbers to back him, should also be open to a counter suggestion like how world class spells from Ishant have gone underrewarded from his personal perspective.

Most of what I've seen here is the pot and kettle calling each other black.

 

[silentstriker]

No it isn't. You should expect bowlers to be able to bowl competently at home.
.

What does that even mean? In what way? How? Does he bowl on different pitches than other fast bowlers in India? Does he get an extra yard of pace all of a sudden?

I actually think Zaheer deserves more credit for being good in England and South Africa, because they're foreign conditions for him and he's had to adapt his game to be a success in those countries.

FFS, he's a swing bowler who is pretty much designed to do well in England. Just because his nationality is Indian means nothing in terms of his bowling....

 

[Bun]

No it isn't. You should expect bowlers to be able to bowl competently at home.

I actually think Zaheer deserves more credit for being good in England and South Africa, because they're foreign conditions for him and he's had to adapt his game to be a success in those countries. What I disagree with is the implication that Zaheer's year average of 23 is better than Anderson's because Zaheer bowled most of it in India.

Your claim is valid had an average of 23 was the defacto standard for a bowler to average in India to get a test spot. However that clearly is not the case. He might be Indian, but he has exceeded by far what an average test bowler, Indian or not, can achieve in India.

 

[Cevno]

That's exactly what the implication is when people say something like 'it's expected because it's at home.'


The fact is certain conditions suit certain bowlers, and English conditions suit bowlers more than Indian ones. People like Zaheer prefer wickets in England, people like Johnson wickets in SA and Australia (obviously there are flat wickets everywhere unfortunately but when they're not) Regardless of whose home it is, it's ludicrous not to give credit to fast bowlers in India, or batsmen who do well in swinging conditions in England.

It's a ridiculous double standard and completely unfair otherwise.

The last time i checked Spinners were bowlers too.

And that is another ridiculous double standard.

 

[Furball]

What does that even mean? In what way? How? Does he bowl on different pitches than other fast bowlers in India? Does he get an extra yard of pace all of a sudden?



FFS, he's a swing bowler who is pretty much designed to do well in England. Just because his nationality is Indian means nothing in terms of his bowling....

No, he grows up on Indian pitches and learns how to bowl successfully in India - the lines and lengths that you need to ball, learning extra skills such as reverse swing, knowing how to bowl tightly to frustrate batsmen when the ball isn't doing much. Zaheer should be better versed in all of that than the likes of Anderson, Morkel and Johnson, who have to learn to do it whilst touring.

Same with English bowlers in English conditions, Australian bowlers in Australian conditions etc. Home bowlers should know the conditions better and be generally able to bowl better on their home decks.

 

[smash84]

FFS, he's a swing bowler who is pretty much designed to do well in England. Just because his nationality is Indian means nothing in terms of his bowling....

good point

 

[Furball]

The last time i checked Spinners were bowlers too.

And that is another ridiculous double standard.

English pitches actually suit spinners a lot more than you'd think. England isn't a particularly bad place to bowl spin.

 

[Bun]

A counterargument on the lines of Zak not deserving credit because he's performing in Indian conditions, is that barring Trott, none of the English batsmen are class because they all average less than or around 50 at home, but ideally they should average like 55 or even 60 at home as they've all played their cricket there.

 

[Cevno]

English pitches actually suit spinners a lot more than you'd think. England isn't a particularly bad place to bowl spin.

India is easily better though.

It's not as if England does not have its share of flat tracks.

 

[Bun]

English pitches actually suit spinners a lot more than you'd think. England isn't a particularly bad place to bowl spin.

Then why doesn't England have any quality spin bowler than Swann?

 

[silentstriker]

No, he grows up on Indian pitches and learns how to bowl successfully in India - the lines and lengths that you need to ball, learning extra skills such as reverse swing, knowing how to bowl tightly to frustrate batsmen when the ball isn't doing much. Zaheer should be better versed in all of that than the likes of Anderson, Morkel and Johnson, who have to learn to do it whilst touring.

That's demonstrably not true as he was not Test class until he went to England.

 

[Furball]

Then why doesn't England have any quality spin bowler than Swann?

1 more than India have.

 

[silentstriker]

The last time i checked Spinners were bowlers too.

And that is another ridiculous double standard.

It's rare that an Indian pitch suits spinners these days.

 

[Uppercut]

No, he grows up on Indian pitches and learns how to bowl successfully in India - the lines and lengths that you need to ball, learning extra skills such as reverse swing, knowing how to bowl tightly to frustrate batsmen when the ball isn't doing much. Zaheer should be better versed in all of that than the likes of Anderson, Morkel and Johnson, who have to learn to do it whilst touring.

Same with English bowlers in English conditions, Australian bowlers in Australian conditions etc. Home bowlers should know the conditions better and be generally able to bowl better on their home decks.

I take your point but you're still being a little facetious. Indian pitches favour batting heavily and you need to be a much, much better bowler to average 30 there than you do in England, that's undeniable. The extent to which a bowler can adjust to his home conditions is hardly infinite.

 

[silentstriker]

1 more than India have.

Haha, Harbhajan is not bowling as well as Swann but it's kind of over the top not to call him 'quality.'

 

[M0rphin3]

That's exactly what the implication is when people say something like 'it's expected because it's at home.'


The fact is certain conditions suit certain bowlers, and English conditions suit bowlers more than Indian ones. People like Zaheer prefer wickets in England, people like Johnson wickets in SA and Australia (obviously there are flat wickets everywhere unfortunately but when they're not) Regardless of whose home it is, it's ludicrous not to give credit to fast bowlers in India, or batsmen who do well in swinging conditions in England.

It's a ridiculous double standard and completely unfair otherwise.

I see your point SS, but I think Anderson might bowl better in home conditions where he gets conventional swing, he's used to it. While Zaheer relies on initial seam movement and reverse swing later on, doesn't he? That doesn't obviously mean Zaheer's not good at bowling conventional swing, but chances are that Anderson is better at it because he bowls it often. Hence the home advantage.