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

[Teja.]

I remember one delivery Anderson bowled to Butt, pitched some way outside leg short of a length, looked to be heading down leg for all money, then suddenly decides to make a sharp powerslide turn and clips the outside edge of a fairly normal defensive stroke, goes straight to slip. Absolute beast of a ball, would've been the best delivery I've seen all year (and for a long time) had Steyn not bowled that godlike ball to Pujara.

Haven't you seen the second test in the Ind-SA series?

 

[Howe_zat]

I remember one delivery Anderson bowled to Butt, pitched some way outside leg short of a length, looked to be heading down leg for all money, then suddenly decides to make a sharp powerslide turn and clips the outside edge of a fairly normal defensive stroke, goes straight to slip. Absolute beast of a ball, would've been the best delivery I've seen all year (and for a long time) had Steyn not bowled that godlike ball to Pujara.

Ooh, me too.

Anderson to Salman Butt, OUT, 85.3 mph, Butt is gone! What a superb delivery from Anderson! That was a magnificent outswinger that started on leg stump and moved sharply away, it found an edge and was snapped up at first slip by Strauss

But, of course, it doesn't count because Butt was spot-fixing. He probably paid the ball to swing.

 

[zaremba]

The term "match-fixing" has been used frequently including by English newspapers. In any case regardless of the details of the allegations my point was that it was a weak batting lineup in a team which was clearly in disarray. The exact nature of the allegations isn't particularly relevant.

Well the point is that a team which is embroiled in a matchfixing controversy is especially unlikely to be well prepared or in good morale.

1. If you actually read that article you'll see that it doesn't allege match-fixing, just spot-fixing, whatever the headline writer may have said. No-one has accused Pakistan of throwing any of the Tests against England.

2. Of course the exact nature of the allegations is relevant. If you say "the Pakistanis were match-fixing" it suggests they were trying to lose, which if true would completely undermine England's achievement. But they weren't trying to lose, regardless of whether they were trying to bowl 2 or 3 no-balls.

3. The allegations of spot-fixing were only made on the eve of the last day of the series, by which time the Pakistanis had already been soundly thrashed. Until then, Pakistan were not "embroiled in any match-fixing [or spot-fixing] controversy". So the result has **** all to do with the fact that allegations had been made.

 

[benchmark00]

England are surely in the box seat due to the fact that they have Saj Mahmood waiting in the wings, and his likeness to a horse has been well documented.

 

[benchmark00]

England are surely in the box seat due to the fact that they have Saj Mahmood waiting in the wings, and his likeness to a horse has been well documented.

Though having said that, Chris Gayle's reported horse-like qualities should not be overlooked...

 

[Furball]

Swann is seriously overrated here on the basis of performances against a weak Pakistan batting lineup. Against Australia,SA and India he averages around 37. He is certainly not far ahead of Harbhajan who performed better than Swann did in SA despite having much less support from the other end. If you look at the two games with Zaheer, he performed much better.

If we want to go down that road, Swann took 21 wickets at 31 in South Africa, and averages 39 in Australia compared to Harbhajan's 77.

 

[Howe_zat]

If we want to go down that road, Swann took 21 wickets at 31 in South Africa, and averages 39 in Australia compared to Harbhajan's 77.

I've tried, GF, it's not happening.

 

[G.I.Joe]

If we want to go down that road, Swann took 21 wickets at 31 in South Africa, and averages 39 in Australia compared to Harbhajan's 77.

TBF to Harbhajan, bowling in Australia in 2003-04 and 2007-08 were entirely different prospects to bowling there in 2010-11.

Why are they even being compared? They'll face off soon, lets just wait instead of dropping pants and whipping out the ruler.

 

[Howe_zat]

TBF to Harbhajan, bowling in Australia in 2003-04 and 2007-08 were entirely different prospects to bowling there in 2010-11.

Why are they even being compared? They'll face off soon, lets just wait instead of dropping pants and whipping out the ruler.

...

But this is how I solve all my problems.

Also, this.

 

[zaremba]

Also, this.

 

[G.I.Joe]

...

But this is how I solve all my problems.

Also, this.

Tis true. The Internets is serious business.

 

[Blaze 18]

To be fair to Dissector, he isn't making an unreasonable point. Whether we like it or not, rightly or wrongly, some people may be reluctant to read too much into that series, particularly the Lord's test. In fact, these fixing allegations go back two years (?); right ? I am sure there are people who look back at the said series with scepticism - the Australian players and fans have admitted as much about the infamous Sydney test, despite it being officially cleared by the ICC. That said, it definitely shouldn't detract from England's magnificent performance in that series. Some of the balls Graeme Swann bowled would have challenged Sourav Ganguly, let alone Imran Farhat.

Now coming to Harbhajan Singh vs Graeme Swann - I rate the latter higher, currently. More than averages and statistics, it is Swann's willingness to toss the ball up to the batsmen that I find impressive. For some reason, Harbhajan Singh hasn't quite shown the inclination to flight the ball, he has become a very defensive bowler. If someone hits a four off his bowling, particularly early on in his spell, you will see a marked change in his tactics. Graeme Swann, on the other hand, doesn't get flustered even if someone hits a four or two off his bowling, he continues to toss the ball up to the batsmen. Having said that, there was some noticeable improvement in Singh's bowling, in the last two series that he played; his performance in South Africa was particularly refreshing.

 

[Dissector]

Why are they even being compared? They'll face off soon, lets just wait instead of dropping pants and whipping out the ruler.

Indeed. We will have a pretty clear idea of Swann's quality in 7 months. My guess is he will look good, bowl a couple of decent spells, end up averaging over 35 yet again and still be hailed as the world's greatest spinner by his fans.

 

[NasserFan207]

Indeed. We will have a pretty clear idea of Swann's quality in 7 months. My guess is he will look good, bowl a couple of decent spells, end up averaging over 35 yet again and still be hailed as the world's greatest spinner by his fans.

I'd be hugely impressed if Swann averages 35 against India.

Don't think it will happen though.

 

[Furball]

Indeed. We will have a pretty clear idea of Swann's quality in 7 months. My guess is he will look good, bowl a couple of decent spells, end up averaging over 35 yet again and still be hailed as the world's greatest spinner by his fans.

He'll outperform Harbhajan.

 

[Hit Wicket]

If England and India were to play a Test series in India instead of playing in the WC, India would of course be favourites. But I just don't understand the bullish "I can't see how England could win a Test match here" talk coming from some of the Indian fans on this forum. England have a strong and balanced team and shown themselves capable of winning Tests anywhere, and well capable of winning against the odds.

Since I was one of the posters who made the "I can't see how England could win a Test match here" remarks, I feel compelled to respond.

How have England shown themselves capable of winning anywhere? England(the current nucleus side) have hardly played in India and Sri Lanka and failed to win a test on their last visit to both these countries. They won a test in India on the back on Flintoff, who is no longer part of the set up - before that it was all the way back in 1984.

I know England is a team on the rise and have delivered a crushing Ashes verdict on Australia, but winning a test in India takes some doing. It requires a mercurial performance or the odd green wicket India might throw up once in a while. It took an all time great Australian side against a depleted Indian side to win the last series India lost at home. Since then, India has lost a total of 4 tests at home in 7 years - one each to the mercurial talents of Flintoff and Steyn, one to South Africa after being caught on the most uncharacteristic green top, and one to Pakistan, adept in playing in subcontinent conditions.

So, what will England bring to India that other teams have not over the last 7 years to take a test match win?

 

[Spark]

Haven't you seen the second test in the Ind-SA series?

That was more off the pitch tbf. An extraordinary delivery but extreme sideways movement is far more orgasmic.

 

[zaremba]

Since I was one of the posters who made the "I can't see how England could win a Test match here" remarks, I feel compelled to respond.

How have England shown themselves capable of winning anywhere? England(the current nucleus side) have hardly played in India and Sri Lanka and failed to win a test on their last visit to both these countries. They won a test in India on the back on Flintoff, who is no longer part of the set up - before that it was all the way back in 1984.

I know England is a team on the rise and have delivered a crushing Ashes verdict on Australia, but winning a test in India takes some doing. It requires a mercurial performance or the odd green wicket India might throw up once in a while. It took an all time great Australian side against a depleted Indian side to win the last series India lost at home. Since then, India has lost a total of 4 tests at home in 7 years - one each to the mercurial talents of Flintoff and Steyn, one to South Africa after being caught on the most uncharacteristic green top, and one to Pakistan, adept in playing in subcontinent conditions.

So, what will England bring to India that other teams have not over the last 7 years to take a test match win?

As I conceded at the outset that India would of course be favourites on their home soil.

Compared with previous England teams, the current team is stronger in just about every department and is a well-balanced, well-drilled and well-prepared team with very few weak links. There's no Flintoff, of course, but that doesn't alter the fact that England is a stronger, more resilient and more versatile team now than it was when he was playing.

I enjoy the way that you manage to write off every Indian defeat as some kind of aberration that could never be repeated - a greentop here, a freak performance by a "mercurial talent" there, a depleted Indian side there. Perhaps - just perhaps - a similar aberration might possibly happen again, such that England (without Freddie! Imagine!) might be able to pull off the impossible?

 

[Hit Wicket]

As I conceded at the outset that India would of course be favourites on their home soil.

Compared with previous England teams, the current team is stronger in just about every department and is a well-balanced, well-drilled and well-prepared team with very few weak links. There's no Flintoff, of course, but that doesn't alter the fact that England is a stronger, more resilient and more versatile team now than it was when he was playing.

In Indian conditions? I really doubt it. They've got awesome back up strength in their bowling attack - that's the biggest improvement in England I've seen. Not sure how that is going to help England win a test match in India, when the entire bowling attack is going to be on it's first tour to India, except Anderson - I concede he is a world class performer capable of taking wickets anywhere. But besides him, whether Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman line up to Broad or Tremlett is a moot point.

I enjoy the way that you manage to write off every Indian defeat as some kind of aberration that could never be repeated - a greentop here, a freak performance by a "mercurial talent" there, a depleted Indian side there. Perhaps - just perhaps - a similar aberration might possibly happen again, such that England (without Freddie! Imagine!) might be able to pull off the impossible?

These instances are really aberrations considering the fact that India has lost just 4 tests in 7 years.

I've always been wary of mercurial talents like Flintoff and Steyn (not so mercurial, but great like Marshall and Hadlee), and the occasional screw ups of our local associations to prepare green tops in order to proclaim their supremacy over BCCI. If one of the above happens, okay. But besides that I just don't see England dismissing Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dhoni, and someone else twice.

I would be the first one to admit that the Indian team has a lot of glaring failings, but for England defeating India in India is still a bridge too far - even in a test match.

 

[Spark]

Nah there is no doubt that this is best England team in a long time. Their execution and spirit are exemplary even if their individual reputations aren't always.