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

[Hit Wicket]

As for the Indian batting strength - how do we know they'll still be there come the next England tour?

I don't. Someone in the thread brought up the hypothetical scenario of the series happening in India in a month's time. But, yeah, says a lot when you are counting on retirements to win a test in India.

 

[zaremba]

lol.. Z, you are yet to see some of the hubris sprouted around by a couple of English fans in the thread about what Gough said.. That would be the context for the hubris shown by some of the Indian fans here.

Fair point HB. I haven't read much of that thread tbh, the inane gibberings of Darren Gough don't really turn me on. There's a "we can whip anybody" school of thought to which the likes of Gough and Botham belong, but I really don't subscribe to it. Whoever does it, and unless it's done in jest, I think that rubbishing the opposition's chances is pointless, makes you look a bit of a prick and can often come back to bite you.

And some of the logic used here - "no one will beat India at home without a mercurial player like Steyn or Flintoff" - is literally laughable.

 

[marc71178]

To be honest we're all Presuming things here, but if it came to it, I'd back this England team to trouble India in India based on the high they're on at the moment and the extreme under-rating of them that appears to be going on on here - of the famed batting line up, I can see 2 weak links at the moment.

 

[Howe_zat]

There's a "we can whip anybody" school of thought to which the likes of Gough, Botham and Corrin belong, but I really don't subscribe to it.

Fix'd

In seriousness, that thread was ridiculous. So many overreactions to a less-than-genius former England player getting carried away by an Ashes win.

 

[Dissector]

But Indian pitches are flat!

Notice how they're not including games against Sri Lanka, which is a bit unfair given they've been ranked ahead of Australia for about a year.

As mentioned I have included Sri Lanka which does drag down India's average a bit ; 3 out 6 times which is actually quite impressive given that all the games were played in the sub-continent. Sri Lanka in the subcontinent is definitely a better batting side than,say, Australia at the moment.

If you want to restrict it to Australia and SA, India have taken 20 wickets in 5 out of 7 games compared to 7 out of 14. If you want to restrict it to games in SA which is the only tour that India and England have in common in the last 18 months, India took 2 out 3 compared to 1 out of 4. The fact is that before these Ashes England have struggled to take 20 wickets against good batting sides whereas India have been pretty consistent over the last 18 months. And I don't think home advantage means much in this context. I would rate the 20 wickets in Calcutta as a bigger achievement than the same in Durban and in general England have struggled to take 20 wickets against good sides at home as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think the stat is wholly misleading in general, because if you take 18 wickets and lose a match by 2 wickets with 2 days to spare, you haven't failed to take all 20 through poor bowling. I'm not saying this has been a regular occurrence with England but the stat within itself shows very little.

 

[Howe_zat]

If you want to restrict it to Australia and SA, India have taken 20 wickets in 5 out of 7 games compared to 7 out of 14. If you want to restrict it to games in SA which is the only tour that India and England have in common in the last 18 months, India took 2 out 3 compared to 1 out of 4. The fact is that before these Ashes England have struggled to take 20 wickets against good batting sides whereas India have been pretty consistent over the last 18 months. And I don't think home advantage means much in this context. I would rate the 20 wickets in Calcutta as a bigger achievement than the same in Durban and in general England have struggled to take 20 wickets against good sides at home as well.

This I think is rather unrepresentative. England's performance in South Africa was marked mostly by batting failures, featuring just about clinging on in two Tests and only building a good innings in one (which they won comprehensively). This meant that in 3 of the tests where England were second best South Africa made lots of early declaratiions as I pointed out earlier.

Yes, India took 20 wickets in two matches out of three but this doesn't tell the full story. In the Third Test South Africa got into the better position thanks to Kallis but were wary of declaring due to worry over India's superior batting, preferring instead to play on until they were bowled out for an unassailable total. This was the kind of position where they may have declared earlier against England. Not to mention, of course, that at Centurion the Indian bowling was utterly trounced.

If you compare the averages for those series than they are much closer - England 60wkts at 37.66, India 42wkts at 39.21.

I would also argue that England's bowling has improved since then.

 

[Dissector]

I think the stat is wholly misleading in general, because if you take 18 wickets and lose a match by 2 wickets with 2 days to spare, you haven't failed to take all 20 through poor bowling. I'm not saying this has been a regular occurrence with England but the stat within itself shows very little.

Every single stat can be misleading if you construct contrived examples. Anyway this discussion began in the context of a statement that India struggled to take 20 wickets without massive help from the wicket and I just wanted to show how wrong that was. They have consistently taken 20 wickets against good batting sides on decent pitches in the last 18 months.

 

[Howe_zat]

Every single stat can be misleading if you construct contrived examples. Anyway this discussion began in the context of a statement that India struggled to take 20 wickets without massive help from the wicket and I just wanted to show how wrong that was. They have consistently taken 20 wickets against good batting sides on decent pitches in the last 18 months.

So if you admit it was misleading why did you post it?

Further, why does England winning three matches by an innings in Australia not count, but India narrowly beating Australia at home twice counts for them being consistent?

 

[Dissector]

When did I admit it was misleading? I said any stat could be misleading if you construct contrived examples. Do you seriously have some kind of comprehension problem? You keep implying I am saying things I am not. Like the idea the that the Ashes wins don't count. I am just saying that England's bowling hasn't been that consistent against good batting sides before the Ashes. Why are English fans so prickly and defensive about their team? If it really is as awesome as all that I am sure the results will tell their own story soon enough.

 

[Furball]

Hmm.....early bet on that?

6 months, if you're game.

 

[GIMH]

So Swann's tour of India didn't happen then?

And Monty didn't play either?

As for the Indian batting strength - how do we know they'll still be there come the next England tour?

The England team that played 2 Tests in 2008 IIRC acquitted themselves very well and it was only a freak performance that stopped them from getting a draw at worst in the series.

Didn't Broad play a game as well?

 

[marc71178]

Oh yes, so he did, but why let the facts get in the way.

 

[shankar]

The England team that played 2 Tests in 2008 IIRC acquitted themselves very well and it was only a freak performance that stopped them from getting a draw at worst in the series.

That's a bit misleading. India were themselves playing for a draw in the second having won the first test.

 

[Dissector]

If India chasing that target was a "freak performance" so was England managing to get a draw with 9 wickets down three times against Australia and SA. Ultimately it's neither here nor there. India beat England and won the series and England manged to get those draws.

The same goes for the excuses made for the loss to the West Indies less than two years ago; apparently that England didn't have the right captain and coach in place before the tour. That is comparable to the idea India deserves credit for doing well despite not having a tour game against SA. Both were decisions made by the cricketing authorities and if the ECB made a mistake while appointing their coach and captain, England doesn't get some kind of special allowance because of that.

If you want to talk about genuinely extenuating circumstances I would say the run of tosses India has lost in big series recently does count. That is a purely random event and doesn't reflect poorly on the team.

 

[Furball]

If India chasing that target was a "freak performance" so was England managing to get a draw with 9 wickets down three times against Australia and SA. Ultimately it's neither here nor there. India beat England and won the series and England manged to get those draws.

The same goes for the excuses made for the loss to the West Indies less than two years ago; apparently that England didn't have the right captain and coach in place before the tour. That is comparable to the idea India deserves credit for doing well despite not having a tour game against SA. Both were decisions made by the cricketing authorities and if the ECB made a mistake while appointing their coach and captain, England doesn't get some kind of special allowance because of that.

If you want to talk about genuinely extenuating circumstances I would say the run of tosses India has lost in big series recently does count. That is a purely random event and doesn't reflect poorly on the team.

It's not a freak performance if it happens 3 times in 6 months.

 

[Dissector]

Why not? Are you seriously suggesting that England tailenders including Monty Panesar have some kind of special skills in surviving at the end of test matches? Ultimately it's a matter of luck.

In fact the India chase was less freakish since Indian batsmen clearly do have great skill especially on Indian soil.

 

[vcs]

Someone posted a statistic that in this decade, only 6 scores of >200 have been successfully chased down in the fourth innings in the subcontinent, and India have done it 5 out of those 6 times.

 

[vcs]

Actually it is only for matches in India and SL, and India have done it 6/7 times.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Dissector]

Just to be clear, I don't begrudge England those draws. They managed to fight it out and good for them. But to somehow hold India's close wins against them (and the England chase wasn't even close) while also taking those draws at face value is pretty silly.