*Official* India Tour of England 2018

[Black_Warrior]

I would rather player Bumrah than Shami. The chance of him lasting 5 days, let alone 5 tests is negligible. I don't want a situation where he starts and gets injured during a test to **** up the whole test. He has also been summoned by the Kolkata police in the near future, so I am not sure he would be in the best state of mind.

Bring in a Gubrani or some one else from the A team to the squad maybe, while we are speaking of faster bowlers.

I think Shami will play now given Bhuvi is out and he is probably the second best swing bowler India have after Bhuvi

 

[Black_Warrior]

India have a decent chance I agree, but not everything you've stated here is right in my opinion.

Firstly, I'd argue Anderson is bowling the best he ever has done in his career. He's ageing and is coming back straight from injury, but he'll know how to bowl and I think will continue to be incredibly successful against the Indian batsmen, especially so if the ball moves about. Braod hasn't been as great, however, there are a few signs that he is coming back to his best, having worked on his action after the winter, and bowling pretty decently in the Pak series. Overall, I don't think Broad/Anderson will be any less threatening in English conditions than they have ever been. Woakes is also great in English conditions so I wouldn't underestimate him in this series.

I also don't necessarily think the pak/eng 2018 series result reflects the quality of the sides either. The problem with going off the Eng/Pak series that just happened, is that it was only two matches. Granted Pakistan did really well to draw the series and win a game with their inexperienced team, and we were dreadful. But it might be that England's performance in that match was just a one off, which is evidenced by the way they played in the next game and won by an innings. I imagine if it were a five match series we would have gone on to win the next three (you never know though). Using the argument that even Pakistan managed to draw is slightly irrelevant I think, since this is a five match series.

Losing a Test match and then coming back strongly in the second Test match is a pretty standard occurence in Test cricket.

Have a look at the 2017 South Africa England and how South Africa decimated England in the 2nd Test after losing the 1st.

It doesn't say all that much about the superiority of a side over another. It's just Test cricket plus we're in an era where Test cricket is as competitive as it has ever been. A 6th ranked Sri Lanka is now thrashing 2nd ranked South Africa

 

[Shady Slim]

england side with a bit of momentum after those final couple one day games against arguably the best side in the world right now
i think the series hinges on the performance of india's pacers

 

[harsh.ag]

With Bhuvi gone, India should take Kuldeep ahead of Ashwin

 

[Borges]

With or without Bhuvi, India should try Kuldeep ahead of Ashwin. Attack, I say.

 

[OverratedSanity]

With Bhuvi gone, India should take Kuldeep ahead of Ashwin

Hope kuldeep plays but I don't get your logic. With bhuvi gone, doesn't ashwin's lower order batting become even more valuable?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Hope kuldeep plays but I don't get your logic. With bhuvi gone, doesn't ashwin's lower order batting become even more valuable?

Not if you just play Ishant, Shami, Yadav (then Bumrah) with Kuldeep and no Hardik.

 

[Borges]

Hardik will play. I don't think India have much of a choice there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not if you just play Ishant, Shami, Yadav (then Bumrah) with Kuldeep and no Hardik.

Huh? That makes the batting even worse.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Huh? That makes the batting even worse.

Nah - you misread me. That is 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers, Bumrah to replace one of the first 3 when fit.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Hardik will play. I don't think India have much of a choice there.

Sometimes I think teams just play an allrounder because they feel obligated to have a 5th bowler.

But 7 wickets in 7 tests is hardly dictating the fortunes of a side when you can thrash the bowling life out of a young wrist spinner as the 4th bowler.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah - you misread me. That is 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers, Bumrah to replace one of the first 3 when fit.

I think they'd want a 5th bowler at least

Sometimes I think teams just play an allrounder because they feel obligated to have a 5th bowler.

But 7 wickets in 7 tests is hardly dictating the fortunes of a side when you can thrash the bowling life out of a young wrist spinner as the 4th bowler.

It's not just the wickets they take, bowling 10-15 overs a day to give other guys a rest is very helpful

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I think they'd want a 5th bowler at least

Why at least?

Punter's great team didn't need one. Nor did Lloyd's (he didn't even have a spinner to thrash).

I get the pro's and cons of the 5th bowling option. And I am happy with CdG (would have preferred Ryder, but I get the debate). But some teams are just doing it for the sake of doing it I think sometimes. That isn't the debate. That then is formula.

It isn't like CdG is leaving Rahul, Vijay, or Rahane as 12th man.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The **** is a CdG

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The **** is a CdG

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...er-vs-chris-morris-vs-marsh-whoever-else.html

 

[harsh.ag]

Hope kuldeep plays but I don't get your logic. With bhuvi gone, doesn't ashwin's lower order batting become even more valuable?

Sure. But wickets are more valuable. With Bhuvi gone, India need another attacking bowler. Ashwin has virtues, but he isn't that.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Sure. But wickets are more valuable. With Bhuvi gone, India need another attacking bowler. Ashwin has virtues, but he isn't that.

You may not feel the same way when Woakes at 8 is scrapping for what becomes a match winning lead.

Runs are often the premium in England lately in between rain showers that are the real force of a day 5 getting play.

 

[cnerd123]

Sure. But wickets are more valuable. With Bhuvi gone, India need another attacking bowler. Ashwin has virtues, but he isn't that.

The reason we need 5 bowlers is because we've seen time and time again that, over a 5 test series, playing 4 bowlers inevitably leads to someone or another breaking down. Especially for India overseas. Sometimes they break down mid game and leave us with just 3 bowlers and some rubbish.

It's just too intense a workload, and if our batting doesn't click the bowlers will have minimal rest between long spells. They lose effectiveness as well.

The fifth bowler gives us that breathing room, regardless if they actually take wickets or not.

 

[harsh.ag]

You may not feel the same way when Woakes at 8 is scrapping for what becomes a match winning lead.

Runs are often the premium in England lately in between rain showers that are the real force of a day 5 getting play.

England don't have similar options like India do. Everything has a trade-off. Good way to ensure Woakes's runs don't hurt is to get the rest of the line-up out for less. Good way to ensure Woakes doesn't scrap a nifty cameo at 8 is to get him out quickly.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The reason we need 5 bowlers is because we've seen time and time again that, over a 5 test series, playing 4 bowlers inevitably leads to someone or another breaking down. Especially for India overseas. Sometimes they break down mid game and leave us with just 3 bowlers and some rubbish.

It's just too intense a workload, and if our batting doesn't click the bowlers will have minimal rest between long spells. They lose effectiveness as well.

The fifth bowler gives us that breathing room, regardless if they actually take wickets or not.

That does seem to be the crux of the debate. And you seem prepared to actually debate it instead of being formulaic, so I give you credit.

But I still say that India has a wrist spinner to thrash for the extra overs (and a spare seamer when Bumrah is fit, not to mention batting talent missing out on a number 6 spot).