England can beat India "every day of week": Gough

[silentstriker]

Isn't that what everyone was saying at the start of the Ashes?

No? Well, I wasn't. I am not sure who you're talking about. The stuff I read was all about how England's preparation was going fantastic, how Australia had been on a downward slide with their defeat in India, and how this was the best chance of winning in several decades.

 

[Prince EWS]

Marcuss and Shri in the thread now = pissing contest.

 

[Jarquis]

Completely and utterly DWTA.

Yeah but you hate spinners so your opinion is kinda redundant.

 

[silentstriker]

Well I don't see you as "Substantial favourites". Unhelpful pitches and a **** bowling attack against our batsmen won't see you win too many, no matter how many runs you make.

I'll disagree with that, but I suppose we'll find out when England tour next.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Let us get this straight - England can beat India every day of the week, but England haven't beaten India for nearly a decade and a half. Something doesn't quite add up, eh ? Yeah, you could argue that series that happened ages ago aren't terribly relevant to the discussion at hand, but the most recent series, namely the ones in 2007 and 2008, do have some relevance.

I am not even trying to suggest that England are not a quality side, mind you; I would be stupid to do that. Like I mentioned in another thread, I feel England have a very good chance to become the number one side in two years time. However, beating the current Indian side wouldn't be a walk in the park for England, even at home. And while both would start favourites at home, I would back India to put up a much better show in England than England in India.

I totally agree with the second part of your post and I don't think you'll find many that don't.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah but you hate spinners so your opinion is kinda redundant.

Yes, but we're comparing Harris to Swann though, not Swann to Steyn. So it's a comparative analysis. Steyn is 'more better' than Anderson, compared to how much Swann is better than Harris.

 

[Blaze 18]

Well I don't see you as "Substantial favourites". Unhelpful pitches and a **** bowling attack against our batsmen won't see you win too many, no matter how many runs you make.

You were a correct lbw decision away from drawing to Australia at home, who we've then gone and comprehensively outplayed in their backyard.

And there were two incorrect decisions that went Australia's way in that innings - Gambhir, Sharma. England's performance in Australia has been awesome though, completely agree.

 

[Jarquis]

Why bring ODIs into this? Swann will be dealt with better than India/Lankan batsmen better than the English deal with India/Lankan spinners. Lets face it Swann has not bowled well against either side in tests.

I brought them into it as it's an example of Swann bowling well to Sri Lankan batsmen in Sri Lankan conditions.
It's far more relevant than how England played spin in the 60s which seems to a big issue for you lately.

Also disagree, Swann outbowled Harbhajan in his debut series and considering he's a much spinner nowadays I don't see why he couldn't do it again.

 

[Shri]

Well I don't see you as "Substantial favourites". Unhelpful pitches and a **** bowling attack against our batsmen won't see you win too many, no matter how many runs you make.

You were a correct lbw decision away from drawing to Australia at home, who we've then gone and comprehensively outplayed in their backyard.

Ishant was clearly not lbw in the first place. We were robbed off a 2 wicket win and had to settle for a 1 wicket win because if that.

 

[Jarquis]

Yes, but we're comparing Harris to Swann though, not Swann to Steyn. So it's a comparative analysis. Steyn is 'more better' than Anderson, compared to how much Swann is better than Harris.

Yeah, but as if you care enough about spinners to actually make a half-informed decision

 

[Jarquis]

Marcuss and Shri in the thread now = pissing contest.

Yeah... but... but England couldn't play spin 25 years ago~!!!

 

[Furball]

Completely and utterly DWTA.

2010:

Steyn: 11 Tests, 60 wickets @ 21.41, SR 39, 4 5w, 1 10w
Anderson: 12 Tests, 57 wickets @ 22.96, SR 48.7, 3 5w, 1 10w

Swann: 14 Tests, 64 wickets @ 25.96, SR 54, 6 5w, 1 10w
Harris: 10 Tests, 23 wickets @ 50.65, SR 120.3, 0 5w

Last 3 calendar years:

Steyn: 29 Tests, 156 wickets @ 22.36, SR 39.8, 9 5w, 2 10w
Anderson: 36 Tests, 143 wickets @ 28.23, SR 55, 7 5w, 1 10w

Swann: 28 Tests, 126 wickets @ 27.66, SR 56.8, 10 5w, 1 10w
Harris: 27 Tests, 73 wickets @ 42.57, SR 91.3, 2 5w

Steyn's ahead of Anderson, no doubt about that. But Swann is so much better than Harris the difference is laughable - this year he's literally been twice the bowler Harris has been. Anderson-Swann is a better pairing than Steyn-Harris, easily.

 

[Blaze 18]

Only Gough has said that. Everyone who's replied to this thread agrees that it was a stupid thing to say.

Well, I was only talking about Gough

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, but we're comparing Harris to Swann though, not Swann to Steyn. So it's a comparative analysis. Steyn is 'more better' than Anderson, compared to how much Swann is better than Harris.

Completely DWTA, but again I think it's an extrapolation of the theory that making sure you don't have weaknesses is more important than having freakish star players. Steyn, Swann and Anderson are all undeniably world class and Harris is arguably not even Test standard. I'd much, much rather have Anderson and Swann in my attack than Steyn and Harris.

 

[Shri]

I brought them into it as it's an example of Swann bowling well to Sri Lankan batsmen in Sri Lankan conditions.
It's far more relevant than how England played spin in the 60s which seems to a big issue for you lately.

Also disagree, Swann outbowled Harbhajan in his debut series and considering he's a much spinner nowadays I don't see why he couldn't do it again.

Yeah right. Bhajji wouldn't have let a side chase 387 on a 5th day pitch.

 

[Jarquis]

Ishant was clearly not lbw in the first place. We were robbed off a 2 wicket win and had to settle for a 1 wicket win because if that.

2 wrongs etc etc

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah right. Bhajji wouldn't have let a side chase 387 on a 5th day pitch.

Yeah, I forgot Swann bowled every over in that innings.

 

[Blaze 18]

2010:

Steyn: 11 Tests, 60 wickets @ 21.41, SR 39, 4 5w, 1 10w
Anderson: 12 Tests, 57 wickets @ 22.96, SR 48.7, 3 5w, 1 10w

Swann: 14 Tests, 64 wickets @ 25.96, SR 54, 6 5w, 1 10w
Harris: 10 Tests, 23 wickets @ 50.65, SR 120.3, 0 5w

Last 3 calendar years:

Steyn: 29 Tests, 156 wickets @ 22.36, SR 39.8, 9 5w, 2 10w
Anderson: 36 Tests, 143 wickets @ 28.23, SR 55, 7 5w, 1 10w

Swann: 28 Tests, 126 wickets @ 27.66, SR 56.8, 10 5w, 1 10w
Harris: 27 Tests, 73 wickets @ 42.57, SR 91.3, 2 5w

Steyn's ahead of Anderson, no doubt about that. But Swann is so much better than Harris the difference is laughable - this year he's literally been twice the bowler Harris has been. Anderson-Swann is a better pairing than Steyn-Harris, easily.

The difference between Steyn and Anderson > the difference between Swann and Harris.

 

[Furball]

Ishant was clearly not lbw in the first place. We were robbed off a 2 wicket win and had to settle for a 1 wicket win because if that.

Should have referred it.

 

[Blaze 18]

Ishant was clearly not lbw in the first place. We were robbed off a 2 wicket win and had to settle for a 1 wicket win because if that.

Gambhir was also wrongly given out lbw...