• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
No-one's "holding close wins against" anyone; no-one's doing India down in the slightest. I think the point is simply that if you can set a team 387 to win in the 4th innings, then you're clearly capable of competing, contrary to what one or two of the more excitable posters here might think. India's fantastic demolition of that target at Chennai was enormously to their credit - it was an outstanding performance and I took my hat off to them for it. And like it or not, GF is quite right to say that the 3 last-ditch draws secured by England cannot be written off as luck - of course there's an element of luck involved but it also strongly evidences the resilience and team spirit that are very important parts of this team's success.
 
Last edited:

Dissector

International Debutant
I would just object to the idea England "acquitted themselves very well" in that test except for that last innings. It would be a bit like saying that India bowled very well in Cape Town except for those last 4 wickets. Or that South Africa dominated that series against England except for those two 10th wickets.

Incidentally I don't belong to the school of thought that England can't compete in India. After all they did draw a series there not so long back which was an impressive effort. Compared to that I am much less impressed by the fact they were competitive over three innings in that Chennai test.
 
Last edited:

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
I would just object to the idea England "acquitted themselves very well" in that test except for that last innings. It would be a bit like saying that India bowled very well in Cape Town except for those last 4 wickets. Or that South Africa dominated that series against England except for those two 10th wickets.

Incidentally I don't belong to the school of thought that England can't compete in India. After all they did draw a series there not so long back which was an impressive effort. Compared to that I am much less impressed by the fact they were competitive over three innings in that Chennai test.
With regard to Chennai, your point is not unreasonable but I think it's also fair to say that if you go into the 4th innings of a game defending 387 you've done pretty well and will win more games than you lose. But frankly it would be wrong to waste too much time trying to extrapolate too much from what happened in one Test more than 2 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Furball

Evil Scotsman
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.
When it happens so often in such a short space of time, it starts looking as if something other than luck is playing a part.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
With regard to Chennai, your point is not unreasonable but I think it's also fair to say that if you go into the 4th innings of a game defending 287 you've done pretty well and will win more games than you lose. But frankly it would be wrong to waste too much time trying to extrapolate too much from what happened in one Test more than 2 years ago.
Your "3" key seems to be broken - India chased down 387 in Chennai.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
TBH I had mis-remembered. Well there you go, 387 is an even more impressive target for England to have set, and an even more impressive target for India to have chased down.
 

cnerd123

likes this
South Africa still need to shake the choker's tag IMO. In this recent series we saw them well below their potential. They dropped important catches, Smith still hasn't figured out how to handle Zaheer, Amla played loose shots which is uncharacteristic of him. You could say ABDV was unlucky, recieved a couple of gems, but he was below par too. And Prince did alright, but didn't convert his starts into big performances. Their bowling was lackluster after Steyn and Morkel - Tsotsobe looked loose, got quite a few wickets (and dropped catches) from poor shots rather than good bowling, and Harris isn't going to trouble any good lineups soon. And relying on Kallis for 15 overs a day is proving to be harder.

India's pace stocks, frankly, suck. Sree has his good spells, and his bad. Ishant hasn't produced any of his venom he should early on recently, his good spells seem to come once every 3 games, he needs to be dropped. Zak his shouldering the burden of the attack on his own. As for spin...Bahjji for the last year and a half has lost his bite, although his last couple of spells in RSA seemed promising.
Our batting is either old - Sachin, Laxman, Dravid - or struggling - Yuvraj, Raina. Gambhir should hit his prime in the next couple of years, looks very good. Viru failed at his biggest test -he'll still be a massive force when the ball isn't moving around too much, but he is unreliable. Especially considering a lot of his dismissals come from poor shots rather that technical deficiencies. Pujara looks promising, Kohli might be up to Test quality too. Rohit Sharma is lazy.

England have a well drilled bowling unit and a promising batting lineup...but there are concerns. They did switch off in phases, KP isn't dominating as frequently as he used too, Swann has shown signs of weakness against quality aggressive batting. Strauss' captaincy is ordinary, and a lineup with strokemakers like KP, Bell and Prior shoring up the lower-middle order can be prone to collapse.


The next couple of years will be very interesting.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
That's a bit misleading. India were themselves playing for a draw in the second having won the first test.
Fair point, although the second test was one where a result was always unlikely because of the time of year IIRC - play stopped early every day didn't it?
 

Jacknife

International Captain
I don't think a truly dominant team will come around for a while. When was the WI period of dominance unofficially considered to end... late '80s? It then took around 10 years for Australia's dominant team to take shape. Even though they unofficially dethroned WI when they won there 2-1 in '95, it wasn't until around '99 when they went on that 16-match winning run that they became truly dominant.
Yes, I don't see a dominant team coming around for a fair few years. I think the No1 rank will be swapped around over the next few years, probably on the basis of who's playing who and other factors. I see the next few years will between, England ,India ,SA with Australian at some point sorting themselves out. But until a team has developed a few young players ,that turn into something special I can't see a team replicating the WI and Australia, but to be honest I wouldn't want to, it's a lot more exciting, where teams are competing for top spot, where every series against the top teams means so much.
 

Jacknife

International Captain
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.
Irony much?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
What nonsense. A good all-round team will always tend to do better, not worse, than an average team with a stand-out player. But hey, who am I to prick your marvellous bubble of pride. You have faith in your team, good for you.
While I certainly am a big fan of the current English side and I don't think they will be as poor or as hopeless as is being made out by a couple of others here in a tour of India, I do think as a general point what HitWicket says has some merit... Against a strong side in conditions that favor them, you are more likely to pull off a one-off win through individual brilliance more than any solid team effort...
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
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.
I would agree with that, brian. :p
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
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?
lol.. that second test win was anything but narrow, tbh..
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's also the possibility that Australia made more of a fight of it in India because they played better.

England just took advantage of them after we softened them up, TBH. :ph34r:
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Saving a match by one wicket three times could definitely still be pure luck tbf. No real significance in that at all. Getting a heads three times when flipping a coin is no reason to assume the coin likes heads better.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Saving a match by one wicket three times could definitely still be pure luck tbf. No real significance in that at all. Getting a heads three times when flipping a coin is no reason to assume the coin likes heads better.
Don't understand that, unless you think Dhoni likes calling "heads".. :p
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Saving a match by one wicket three times could definitely still be pure luck tbf. No real significance in that at all. Getting a heads three times when flipping a coin is no reason to assume the coin likes heads better.
It's possible that it was pure luck, a series of independent and random coin-toss type events. Or it's possible that the 3 last ditch stands had a common cause, or that each event influenced the next. My view is that the "pure luck" theory seems implausible, and that the last ditch stands were a reflection of, and helped to reinforce, the team's resilience. No doubt even on that view there was a dollop of luck involved, of course - there always is.
 
Last edited:

Top