Three horse race to be the best team in the world?

[Teja.]

Tough to make out where the current England team stands. How much of their success in Australia was due to the poor opposition Australia presented?

I don't think they are anywhere as good a side as India across all conditions. It's difficult to see England coming to India and winning a test match, let alone a series. The opposite on the other hand sounds very plausible. Amongst the first XI picks, I would definitely rate India higher. Where England have the edge is in their back up bowling attack, an aspect of cricket which has become crucial in today's cricket with injuries. England will be able to put a good replacement for Anderson on the field, but India's attack would be severely dented in the absence of Zaheer.

There really isn't much to choose from in the first choice attack. Zaheer-Anderson, Sreesanth-Broad, Ishant-Finn/Tremlett, Harbhajan-Swann are pretty much the same quality bowlers give or take the conditions, form, and opposition. However, India has a huge edge in batting despite some big scores England put up in Australia.

I consider it a deep insult to Finn and Tremlett to compare them to ishant Sharma tbh.

 

[Hit Wicket]

I consider it a deep insult to Finn and Tremlett to compare them to ishant Sharma tbh.

Tremlett would be better, though unproven. But Finn is no better or worse than Ishant, despite the terrible series he had in South Africa. And we might end up taking an in form RP Singh.

 

[Teja.]

Tremlett would be better, though unproven. But Finn is no better or worse than Ishant, despite the terrible series he had in South Africa. And we might end up taking an in form RP Singh.

Nah, Ishant in his current form cannot dream of taking 13 wickets @ 35 in Oz.

 

[Howe_zat]

Tough to make out where the current England team stands. How much of their success in Australia was due to the poor opposition Australia presented?

I don't think they are anywhere as good a side as India across all conditions. It's difficult to see England coming to India and winning a test match, let alone a series. The opposite on the other hand sounds very plausible. Amongst the first XI picks, I would definitely rate India higher. Where England have the edge is in their back up bowling attack, an aspect of cricket which has become crucial in today's cricket with injuries. England will be able to put a good replacement for Anderson on the field, but India's attack would be severely dented in the absence of Zaheer.

There really isn't much to choose from in the first choice attack. Zaheer-Anderson, Sreesanth-Broad, Ishant-Finn/Tremlett, Harbhajan-Swann are pretty much the same quality bowlers give or take the conditions, form, and opposition. However, India has a huge edge in batting despite some big scores England put up in Australia.

I really do think there is a gulf between Anderson and the rest of England's bowlers, and that he is the only one there to be absolutely world class. I'd also rate Swann way above Harbhajan these days.

I don't think England would be the favourites in a series in India but they would give them a very good run. The 2011 series should be really, really tight if England's bowlers get on song.

 

[Furball]

Tough to make out where the current England team stands. How much of their success in Australia was due to the poor opposition Australia presented?

I don't think they are anywhere as good a side as India across all conditions. It's difficult to see England coming to India and winning a test match, let alone a series. The opposite on the other hand sounds very plausible. Amongst the first XI picks, I would definitely rate India higher. Where England have the edge is in their back up bowling attack, an aspect of cricket which has become crucial in today's cricket with injuries. England will be able to put a good replacement for Anderson on the field, but India's attack would be severely dented in the absence of Zaheer.

There really isn't much to choose from in the first choice attack. Zaheer-Anderson, Sreesanth-Broad, Ishant-Finn/Tremlett, Harbhajan-Swann are pretty much the same quality bowlers give or take the conditions, form, and opposition. However, India has a huge edge in batting despite some big scores England put up in Australia.

This is ridiculous. England's bowling attack is far, far better than India's.

India's batting line up is stronger on paper, but there's also significant potential weaknesses in the line up. Sehwag has still yet to prove himself properly in conditions that will give the quicks some assistance, Gambhir might have posted good numbers in South Africa but IMO looked absolutely village at times, and who bats 6? Will Dravid play, and what sort of form will he be in if he does?

I'm not for a minute suggesting that Sehwag and Gambhir will definitely fail, merely that their success in England is far from guaranteed. And if they do badly, that's a huge, huge weakness.

 

[Cevno]

This is ridiculous. England's bowling attack is far, far better than India's.

India's batting line up is stronger on paper, but there's also significant potential weaknesses in the line up. Sehwag has still yet to prove himself properly in conditions that will give the quicks some assistance, Gambhir might have posted good numbers in South Africa but IMO looked absolutely village at times, and who bats 6? Will Dravid play, and what sort of form will he be in if he does?

I'm not for a minute suggesting that Sehwag and Gambhir will definitely fail, merely that their success in England is far from guaranteed. And if they do badly, that's a huge, huge weakness.

To be fair if there are weakness's in the Indian batting ,it is not as if there are not in the English bowling.

While they might have done well in the Ashes ,i still feel except Anderson there is a drop of quality to the rest.

Tremlett and Broad both bowl shorter lengths than what is ideal for their home conditions,while Finn and Bresnan have largely done not too much so far.

In fact Stuart Broad has comparable average in his career so far too Sreesanth and Ishant (in more helpful conditions)and he was atleast England's number 2 bowler going into the ashes.

And as for Swann,i don't rate him as highly as many on here seem to rate him as and don't think he is better than Bhajji.

 

[morgieb]

SA/England/India XI

Sehwag
Cook
Amla
Kallis
Tendulkar
de Villiers
Dhoni
Swann
Zaheer
Morkel
Steyn

So strong I had to leave Laxman and Anderson out.

Rest

Tamin
Watson
Sangakarra
Jayawardene
Hussey
Younis
Haddin
Shakib
Johnson
Malinga
Roach

That's on current form, both sides. Don't think my SA/England/India lineup would be much different taking reputation into account but the other side deffo would.

 

[Furball]

To be fair if there are weakness's in the Indian batting ,it is not as if there are not in the English bowling.

FTR I'm not claiming India's batting is weak, doing so is just stupid. There are potential weaknesses though, and if there's any bowling attack in the world that will exploit them, it's England.

 

[Spark]

To be fair if there are weakness's in the Indian batting ,it is not as if there are not in the English bowling.

While they might have done well in the Ashes ,i still feel except Anderson there is a drop of quality to the rest.

Tremlett and Broad both bowl shorter lengths than what is ideal for their home conditions,while Finn and Bresnan have largely done not too much so far.

In fact Stuart Broad has comparable average in his career so far too Sreesanth and Ishant (in more helpful conditions)and he was atleast England's number 2 bowler going into the ashes.

And as for Swann,i don't rate him as highly as many on here seem to rate him as and don't think he is better than Bhajji.

Wow, massively disagree with the insinuation that Broad is roughly equal to Sree or Ishant. Even when he didn't get wickets, he looked a proper handful.

 

[Athlai]

England look like they could be the best team in the world in a year or two.

 

[silentstriker]

FTR I'm not claiming India's batting is weak, doing so is just stupid. There are potential weaknesses though, and if there's any bowling attack in the world that will exploit them, it's England.

Nah, South Africa has a much better chance of exploiting possible Indian weaknesses (and on occasion, they've done just that).

I'm many more times comfortable going into a game against the English bowling attack compared to the Saffies. I'm comfortable that people who are not named Yuvraj will generally at the very least keep Swann in check (even if they don't dominate him) - Anderson and Tremmlet worry me but less than Steyn and Morkel. English conditions also worry me less than the SA conditions.

 

[Spark]

Depends what conditions are like this year, really. If they were like that last year, then watch out. Anderson was churning out ludicrous deliveries on a regular basis.

 

[Cevno]

Wow, massively disagree with the insinuation that Broad is roughly equal to Sree or Ishant. Even when he didn't get wickets, he looked a proper handful.

I am not insinuating anything,tbh.

Just saying that his statistics are roughly equal to them .You can derive your own conclusions.

As for looking a Handful Sreesanth looked very handful in SA in helpful conditions when he got it right and also picked up wickets to show for it.

While Ishant looked very Handful in Australia too ,though it was a couple of years ago without getting full rewards too. And a few times since then.

The Problem for Broad and why he does not pick so many wickets is that he can be a bit inconsistent and bowls a short length than what is ideal for his home conditions, a bit like Ishant too.

I would say Broad is a better bowler atm consistently than the 2 by a small margin ,but looking good for a pace bowler in India is more tougher than looking good in England or Australia.

 

[Cevno]

Depends what conditions are like this year, really. If they were like that last year, then watch out. Anderson was churning out ludicrous deliveries on a regular basis.

I agree he was,but Some of the spells that Steyn Produced in the current India - South Africa series were even better and in equally helpful conditions.

Besides, ZAK and Sree would be handful in those conditions as well and the low scoring games are India's best chances of winning as shown in the Durban match.

 

[Athlai]

I really didn't think Ishant looked that good in Australia besides beating Ponting's bat. Thought he looked decent at best.

 

[Cevno]

Nah, South Africa has a much better chance of exploiting possible Indian weaknesses (and on occasion, they've done just that).

I'm many more times comfortable going into a game against the English bowling attack compared to the Saffies. I'm comfortable that people who are not named Yuvraj will generally at the very least keep Swann in check (even if they don't dominate him) - Anderson and Tremmlet worry me but less than Steyn and Morkel. English conditions also worry me less than the SA conditions.

Agreed.

And Indian Batsmen have in general over the years been more comfortable with the English Conditions then the South African ones due to lesser bounce and pace in the tracks.

 

[Spark]

I am not insinuating anything,tbh.

Just saying that his statistics are roughly equal to them .You can derive your own conclusions.

As for looking a Handful Sreesanth looked very handful in SA in helpful conditions when he got it right and also picked up wickets to show for it.

While Ishant looked very Handful in Australia too ,though it was a couple of years ago without getting full rewards too. And a few times since then.

The Problem for Broad and why he does not pick so many wickets is that he can be a bit inconsistent and bowls a short length than what is ideal for his home conditions, a bit like Ishant too.

I would say Broad is a better bowler atm consistently than the 2 by a small margin ,but looking good for a pace bowler in India is more tougher than looking good in England or Australia.

Nah, Broad is a consistent bowler. Bowls a bit short, yes, but only a bit too short. He won't leak runs.

 

[centurymaker]

This is ridiculous. England's bowling attack is far, far better than India's.

India's batting line up is stronger on paper, but there's also significant potential weaknesses in the line up. Sehwag has still yet to prove himself properly in conditions that will give the quicks some assistance, Gambhir might have posted good numbers in South Africa but IMO looked absolutely village at times, and who bats 6? Will Dravid play, and what sort of form will he be in if he does?

I'm not for a minute suggesting that Sehwag and Gambhir will definitely fail, merely that their success in England is far from guaranteed. And if they do badly, that's a huge, huge weakness.

Indian batsmen normally do alot better in England than in SA, so I wouldn't put their batting down as a weakness at all. Also, they didn't do all that badly in SA this time around against the best bowling pair in the world on bouncier and faster pitches than the ones you get in England.
Bowling is their weakness though. They'll need someone like RP Singh to get back in-form, if they are to consistently take 20 wickets. This is because Zaheer will sustain injuries again- I can't see him even lasting for 2 tests in England at greater than 80% fitness level after the workload in the WC, IPL and the WI tour.
And I think Swann is as good as Harbhajan.

 

[Maximus0723]

Dhoni no good in test. I would just pick ABDV and have him keep.

 

[Cevno]

I really didn't think Ishant looked that good in Australia besides beating Ponting's bat. Thought he looked decent at best.

He looked good pretty good at Perth and decent in the adelaide test.

Though he may not have got the wickets to prove it.

One series before that against Pakistan he looked good and also looked pretty good in the next 3 series against South Africa,England,Australia at home and even got decent rewards in all,IIRC.

He tailed off big time after that due to his confidence being shaken with ODI ,T20's and the IPL plus some minor injuries.