They played in much worse pitches than what England got. Unlike SA, England won the toss batted first and still got thumped by an innings on a much more placid pitch.Remind me how South Africa did in India.
They played in much worse pitches than what England got. Unlike SA, England won the toss batted first and still got thumped by an innings on a much more placid pitch.Remind me how South Africa did in India.
SA got bowled out for 200 on a flat track in Bangalore and would've lost by an innings and plenty if not for rain.They played in much worse pitches than what England got. Unlike SA, England won the toss batted first and still got thumped by an innings on a much more placid pitch.
Ah the old 'it wad the pitches' excuse.They played in much worse pitches than what England got. Unlike SA, England won the toss batted first and still got thumped by an innings on a much more placid pitch.
Who are these middle orders stacked with 45+ averaging batsmen then?Lol, No they aren't. They probably have the deepest batting line-up in the world, but that doesn't categorically make them the best side on paper. They have Moeen Ali batting at numbers 4 or 5, averaging 32, Stokes who bats 5 or 6 averaging 34. Take a look at some of the averages of other middle orders around the world at the moment.
I actually think England are up there if we're talking purely non-SC conditions, probably slightly behind SA in the bowling department, even if they might bat a little longer, but not sure how you can categorically say they're the best side on paper going around. Well I can actually, you're a one-eyed English supporter.
I reckon there's an argument that the pitches being so bowler-friendly actually narrowed the difference between the two sides. Certainly it narrowed the gap between their spinners.Ah the old 'it wad the pitches' excuse.
Anyone willing to give England a pass for drawing in Bangladesh then?
Not me. India is the best atm followed by RSA...then the rest. I can see India easily white washing every other team at home and being relatively competitive away. No other team is nearly as dominant at home.Ah the old 'it wad the pitches' excuse.
Anyone willing to give England a pass for drawing in Bangladesh then?
Pakistan in the UAE (P9 W5 D4 L0)?Not me. India is the best atm followed by RSA...then the rest. I can see India easily white washing every other team at home and being relatively competitive away. No other team is nearly as dominant at home.
Pakistan have constantly been dropping tests at home. They don't lose series, yes, but they've dropped "home" tests to SA, NZ, SL, and even wi.Pakistan in the UAE (P9 W5 D4 L0)?
That is the challenge but you are having to overhaul your recent history here. Since 2011, India on tour have been beaten by England (twice), Australia (twice), South Africa and even New Zealand. It is a fairly miserable record when you consider the fact that the other major Test teams - even the poor Aussies - have all picked up scalps while on tour during a similar time frame: England (India/South Africa), South Africa (Australia twice), Australia (South Africa). Even Pakistan pulled-off a highly convincing draw in England.
There is not a competitive tour for India until 2018 (Proteas).
Yup, I don't think any honest & respectable England fans would disagree with that statement atm.India have to be on top right now, of course that is partly down to the fact they are in middle of a really long home season but they look pretty much unbeatable at home and nobody else does.
Yeah, India are close if we're talking batting depth at the moment.I will give that to India as well, very capable batsmen till 9 and the 10 and Jack are more capable of hitting sixes compared to their English counterparts.
Doubt people will until another non-minnow side that isn't the West Indies gets beaten by them in a Test match. Let's see what happens moving forward & if Bangladesh do beat some other sides, perhaps then.Anyone willing to give England a pass for drawing in Bangladesh then?
Who said anything about 45+ averages? Ali and Stokes average 32 & 34 respectively, which doesn't make them crap batsmen btw, but does suggest they're not the best batting lineup going around by a long-shot.Who are these middle orders stacked with 45+ averaging batsmen then?
Agree, if they actually had really good batting from positions 1-4, the case about their depth would be a little stronger.The 'England bat deep' claim has been found out to be a bit hollow I find. Well, Bairstow and Stokes are constantly repairing the England innings all the time but following that, your Woakes and Rashids didn't do much with the bat when compared with the Indian players in those positions.
I must admit I was wondering where Faf would fit assuming AB was coming back in with the whole quota thing being taken more serious these days, so you might actually have a point.i wonder where ab fits in to sa now du plessis is confirmed captain
amla up to open then or lil quint? balancing act for the them in the future but i'm stoked for fafI must admit I was wondering where Faf would fit assuming AB was coming back in with the whole quota thing being taken more serious these days, so you might actually have a point.
If it's me, I think Cook is the guy to go, in spite of his 100 against Aust, I'm still not convinced by him at all.
For the last major Test side that a touring India have beaten you have to go back to 2007 (England v), unless you include the Kiwis (08/09). Fact. The Australians, English, South Africans and (to a lesser degree) Pakistanis have all had significant away scalps claimed from one-and-another. India have been completely absent from this party. Thumping Bangladesh and the West Indians now and then does not qualify.Pakistan have constantly been dropping tests at home. They don't lose series, yes, but they've dropped "home" tests to SA, NZ, SL, and even wi.
Also, don't think India's series win in SL can be written off quite so easily when Australia got whitewashed there.