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

[Jacknife]

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.




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.

Well, bugger me, England shouldn't bother in turning up, it's all sorted.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Well, bugger me, England shouldn't bother in turning up, it's all sorted.

Yeah, ideally. But that didn't stop them from showing up for the last 25 years barring 1 test match, specially '93 which was supposed to be the best equipped side against spin.

 

[Jacknife]

Yeah, ideally. But that didn't stop them from showing up for the last 25 years barring 1 test match, specially '93 which was supposed to be the best equipped side against spin.

Is this just a one off performance or are you here all week.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Is this just a one off performance or are you here all week.

Naah! It's a one off performance, like England's.

 

[Jacknife]

Naah! It's a one off performance, like England's.

Ohhhhh,mate if you were that good when England toured in 2006 why didn't you win the series? By the way your lot have only ever won 5 tests in England out of 48 tries, so you can go on all you want about once in 25 years, especially when were talking about the team of 2011.
Any way I'm out of here, it's pointless.

 

[Jacknife]

Naah! It's a one off performance, like England's.

double post.

 

[Hit Wicket]

double post.

Why? It's pretty easy to explain - India tried the 5 bowler 5 batsman strategy and lost the match after deciding to bowl first on a pitch which would crumble - such stars are not going to align anytime soon. Moreover, England had a Flintoff to switch the balance like they did in the early 80s, with Botham - the last time England won.

It's not too much far away in the future - in the new FTP England will probably tour India in the next 2 years. Feel free to bump this thread if England wins a test match.

 

[silentstriker]

He'll outperform Harbhajan.

Hmm.....early bet on that?

 

[vcs]

Yeah, ideally. But that didn't stop them from showing up for the last 25 years barring 1 test match, specially '93 which was supposed to be the best equipped side against spin.

Loved that series. The first Test series I properly watched from start to finish. It did give me an inflated impression of India as a Test side, though. Which lasted until the next time India played a series outside the subcontinent.

 

[tooextracool]

Some pretty ordinary arguments being made here. India are no doubt favorites at home, but they are also at their weakest at home than they've been at any other point over the last 10 years. Reason being that for the first time, they dont have a spinner to complement Harbhajan (who for me is more of a 2nd spinner than a lead spinner) and they still havent found a replacement for Kumble. As a result, we've seen the likes of Australia and NZ who are amongst the bottom 4 teams in the world push them close and SA took a test off them last year.

Thats not to say that England are favorites, but the point is that they are definitely in with a chance merely because playing in the subcontinent isnt really half as challenging as it was when Murali and Kumble paroled these grounds. If you ask me, England will have a tougher time defending against India at home than beating India in India simply because Zaheer in England (along with back up from Sreesanth) > Harbhajan in India.

 

[vcs]

Some pretty ordinary arguments being made here. India are no doubt favorites at home, but they are also at their weakest at home than they've been at any other point over the last 10 years. Reason being that for the first time, they dont have a spinner to complement Harbhajan (who for me is more of a 2nd spinner than a lead spinner) and they still havent found a replacement for Kumble. As a result, we've seen the likes of Australia and NZ who are amongst the bottom 4 teams in the world push them close and SA took a test off them last year.

Thats not to say that England are favorites, but the point is that they are definitely in with a chance merely because playing in the subcontinent isnt really half as challenging as it was when Murali and Kumble paroled these grounds. If you ask me, England will have a tougher time defending against India at home than beating India in India simply because Zaheer in England (along with back up from Sreesanth) > Harbhajan in India.

Kumble is definitely going to be a huge miss for India at home in the long term. God, how many matches that man won for us in India.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Some pretty ordinary arguments being made here. India are no doubt favorites at home, but they are also at their weakest at home than they've been at any other point over the last 10 years. Reason being that for the first time, they dont have a spinner to complement Harbhajan (who for me is more of a 2nd spinner than a lead spinner) and they still havent found a replacement for Kumble. As a result, we've seen the likes of Australia and NZ who are amongst the bottom 4 teams in the world push them close and SA took a test off them last year.

Thats not to say that England are favorites, but the point is that they are definitely in with a chance merely because playing in the subcontinent isnt really half as challenging as it was when Murali and Kumble paroled these grounds. If you ask me, England will have a tougher time defending against India at home than beating India in India simply because Zaheer in England (along with back up from Sreesanth) > Harbhajan in India.

Kumble just ensured that no one got a sniff, but even without him - as long as the present batting line up is around - India are unbeatable at home.

I am yet to hear of how England or any bowling attack in the world not including Steyn can bowl out Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dhoni, a 6th batsman, and a useful tail twice on Indian tracks?

 

[tooextracool]

Your question is like asking someone how to add 2+2. Chris Martin with virtually no back up bowled India out twice in a test match in India recently. Ben Hilfenhaus and Johnson came close to doing the same.

Should think a side with a world class fast bowler, a world class spinner, some fairly useful backup and some brilliant fielding should at least be in with a shout.

 

[Teja.]

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?

While I don't agree with all of his points, it's true that while the English bowling attack is overall(While nothing on Tahir's capabilities as a test match bowler) stronger than SA's, It is is also true that it usually requires an ATG bowling performance from one bowler to defeat India in India, They need to be bowled out for an extremely low total. As PEWS said in the tour thread, India need to be completely outplayed to win a game in India, Hence while Tremlett-Anderson-Swann-Broad is consistently a better bowling line-up than Steyn-Morkel-Harris-lolbad, It's not true in India. Because when it's a close game it usually heads to a draw and to completely outplay India in India, You need one bowler stepping up and destroying the batting line-up in an Innings.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Your question is like asking someone how to add 2+2. Chris Martin with virtually no back up bowled India out twice in a test match in India recently. Ben Hilfenhaus and Johnson came close to doing the same.

Should think a side with a world class fast bowler, a world class spinner, some fairly useful backup and some brilliant fielding should at least be in with a shout.

Sure, if bowling India out with an hour left in the test and 200+ to score is your ambition, you might be able to do it. But, I was expecting a more realistic portal of bowling India out - it simply cannot be done with the current line up in Indian conditions if the attack does not have Steyn.

 

[Teja.]

It's fairly ridiculous to say England have no chance of winning even one test in India though tbf, though India definitely start as massive favs.

 

[tooextracool]

Sure, if bowling India out with an hour left in the test and 200+ to score is your ambition, you might be able to do it. But, I was expecting a more realistic portal of bowling India out - it simply cannot be done with the current line up in Indian conditions if the attack does not have Steyn.

And yet we saw it only 4 years earlier with Flintoff and Anderson. Im not sure what to make out of your argument, India barely got away on both occasions against Australia and NZ. You speak with such confidence as though it is inconceivable that a better bowling attack might not capitalize on situations where the opposition is on the rack at 65/6. India is a great batting side, but much like the great Aussies used to, every team is vulnerable to a collapse especially when they put up against a formidable total.

 

[silentstriker]

Your question is like asking someone how to add 2+2. Chris Martin with virtually no back up bowled India out twice in a test match in India recently. Ben Hilfenhaus and Johnson came close to doing the same.

Should think a side with a world class fast bowler, a world class spinner, some fairly useful backup and some brilliant fielding should at least be in with a shout.

Winning a solitary match is different from winning a series.

This England side will not win a series in India. Or rather, it is so very highly unlikely that I don't really pay it much attention.

 

[Hit Wicket]

And yet we saw it only 4 years earlier with Flintoff and Anderson. Im not sure what to make out of your argument, India barely got away on both occasions against Australia and NZ. You speak with such confidence as though it is inconceivable that a better bowling attack might not capitalize on situations where the opposition is on the rack at 65/6. India is a great batting side, but much like the great Aussies used to, every team is vulnerable to a collapse especially when they put up against a formidable total.

I already acknowledged special players like Flintoff, Steyn can win tests in India. Problem is England don't have any.

 

[tooextracool]

Dont think it is quite out of this world for that to happen. Given the pitches in India you can really only expect 1 result pitch per series. All it takes is one bad session. Think back to England in Pakistan 2000/01.