See, the reason why I don't think this is because:
1) SA got bowled out for a paltry score despite winning the toss and batting first in Bangalore which was a flat track. Their batting was just in dire straits, and that match proved that the pitches, while they did contribute, wasn't the reason they couldn't make scores. Having spuds like van zyl and Vilas and having Faf and ab completely out of sorts killed them.
2) The nagpur deck was a genuine turner, but the thing is, it spun from ball one. It definitely provided India with an advantage, but SA were bowled out for 79 on day 2. Day 2. The pitch had not had any time to get much worse. They were shot. I'd wager a large amount they'd have been bowled out for less than 100 even if they'd batted first there. They didn't even have scoreboard pressure, since India barely got 200.
3) It would've been very easy for England to fall apart mentally after going 2-0 down and later, 3-0 down. And they've still come out here and made a good score here. Which SA failed to do.
To put so much of it down to pitches is doing a disservice to England, especially when compared to sa. They have been objectively better.
1. Bangalore was after the first test annihilation happened. Shastri was right. They wanted to demoralize RSA in the very first test and they managed to do that. England did not face such a test, so you are just extrapolating that they have done better basically based on nothing. The way they capitulated in the 4th innings at both Vizag and Mumbai tells me they would have done the same as England if given that kind of a track. Lets face it, RSA tried their best to be aggressive and upset the spinners, which is what Root and Co. did at Mumbai too. It just comes off better on the flatter decks.
2. 79 all out on day 2 on that track is the equivalent of 280 odd Eng made in the 1st innings at Mohali. In other words, you cant really compare England performing on 5 flat and true (for the most part) tracks against RSA on up and down and turning tracks (again, nothing unplayable AFAIC but we have had these arguments in that tour thread).
3. See points 1 & 2.
To me, the relative strengths of the side at least as a batting unit, I think RSA would have done just as well as England have done here. What I should have mentioned in my original post though, was that England have much better depth to their bowling and as bad as they have been at times iwth the ball here, I think RSA would have been worse, much worse, esp. without Steyn.
Agree completely! Good post.
But in a way it's kind of reassuring for SA and their fans that their own failings contributed to their getting outplayed, more so than India's heroics. This time around against England, India have played perfect cricket since Rajkot, pretty much. That's got to be demoralizing to the opposition.
Its my point. RSA had a lot of ceiling in terms of what they actually did and what they were capable of and I think most of it was down to the pitches, I dont even think the toss was as much of a factor. England have pretty much played as well as any reasonable person could have hoped for and still been simply outclassed.
Give this ****ing toss thing a rest - it is not as big a deal as you're are trying to make out, just a useful excuse for NZ for being properly thumped.
England have definitely been a lot more competitive then any other recent touring side to India, and but for stupid silly mistakes (number of dropped catches in last 2 games for example) would've been even closer to India then they have been.
INda dropped many many more mate, you just dont remember them coz the next chances were created pretty soon thereafter and/or the other department ensured it was not felt as bad. I agree the tosses are no excuse but I dont see any reason why England are clearly better than RSA in terms of how both teams performed in India. To me, RSA on these pitches would have done what England did and England, on those pitches, would have done what RSA did. Maybe England have a slight edge coz of their bowling depth but they also seem to have a captain who has NFI how to use that depth to his advantage.
