England

[Lions81]

believe me england are definetly good enough to put up a good fight against india in india.the last time they toured india they nearly pulled of a win in the final test(they should have but didnt because of the rain).they out performed india in the 2nd test as well. this without gough,caddick and thorpe(for the last 2 tests) is quite an achievement against an indian side that is quite similar to what it is today.

I must disagree with you, and with Swervy and Tom Halsey in this regard as well. Let's examine the three matches:

1st Test, Mohali: India won by 10 wickets.

This was a rather easy victory for the Indians, taking nothing away from England. Yes, perhaps there was no Michael Vaughan, nor Andy Caddick or Gough, but the Indian bowling consisted of Iqbal Siddiqui, Tinu Yohannan and Sanjay Bangar as pace, with only Kumble and Harbhajan Singh as international-class bowlers.

2nd Test, Ahmedbad: Draw

I fail to see how England outplayed India by anything other than a marginal effect. This is how draws tend to be. One team plays slightly better, but not good enough to impose themselves on the match. Scoring 400 on an Indian pitch for a touring side is a considerable accomplishment, but Dravid and Ganguly showed no signs of giving up their wickets in the fourth innings, nor did the English bowlers show any signs of forcing them to depart. This was a push at best, perhaps give the nod to the tourists but certainly no domination.

3rd Test, Bangalore: Draw

Yes, there was considerable rain at work here, and yes, England take a 98-run first innings lead into their second innings, where they added another unbeaten 33 runs before the rains poured down. But this is certainly far too early to claim that England would have won the match despite the rains. India had Javagal Srinath and Anil Kumble on their home pitches, and an in-form Harbhajan Singh as well. I can't imagine that anyone can fairly extrapolate a result with reasonable certainty.

The English side played well on their tour of India in 2001, but to say that they would have won it if not for the rains is an unfair and unsupportable claim to make.

 

[Tom Halsey]

True, but I think there is most certainly a fair chance that India would not have won.

 

[Lions81]

True, but I think there is most certainly a fair chance that India would not have won.

Ah yes, but this is not the same as saying England would have won! :P

I think considering everything that took place during those three tests, a 1-0 series result in favor of India was appropriate. India did not deserve to win by a larger margin, nor did England deserve to lose by one.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Nor did England deserve to lose by one.

I know, they didn't deserve to lose at all!! :P

 

[Lions81]

 

[Swervy]

I know, they didn't deserve to lose at all!! :P

yeah overall, I was more impressed with England than I was with India (when things like home field advantage etc was taken into account)...and I guess England were the better team on the whole in the series in England.....so really on past evidence,England are certainly has good as India in tests ( I would actually say that both teams are slightly better than they were then)

 

[Langeveldt]

Whatever happened to Iqbal Siddiqui?

 

[Craig]

Whatever happened to Iqbal Siddiqui?

Played one Test and is probably rotting in State cricket in India?

 

[tooextracool]

I must disagree with you, and with Swervy and Tom Halsey in this regard as well. Let's examine the three matches:

2nd Test, Ahmedbad: Draw

I fail to see how England outplayed India by anything other than a marginal effect. This is how draws tend to be. One team plays slightly better, but not good enough to impose themselves on the match. Scoring 400 on an Indian pitch for a touring side is a considerable accomplishment, but Dravid and Ganguly showed no signs of giving up their wickets in the fourth innings, nor did the English bowlers show any signs of forcing them to depart. This was a push at best, perhaps give the nod to the tourists but certainly no domination.

so a lead of 116 runs in the first innings is what ud call outplaying by a marginal effect?i think not.....and this was with srinath,kumble and harbhajan...decent indian attack it must be said compared to the english one that was devoid of gough,caddick and thorpe and stewart with the bat.

3rd Test, Bangalore: Draw

Yes, there was considerable rain at work here, and yes, England take a 98-run first innings lead into their second innings, where they added another unbeaten 33 runs before the rains poured down. But this is certainly far too early to claim that England would have won the match despite the rains. India had Javagal Srinath and Anil Kumble on their home pitches, and an in-form Harbhajan Singh as well. I can't imagine that anyone can fairly extrapolate a result with reasonable certainty.

The English side played well on their tour of India in 2001, but to say that they would have won it if not for the rains is an unfair and unsupportable claim to make. [/B]

u must know that the wicket on which they were playing was very similar to english conditions.....and ur in form kumble and harbhajan only took 1 wicket between them in the first innings. im pretty sure that england would have won because the ball was seaming around a bit and batting last on that wicket chasing 300+ would have been impossible for an indian team that struggles to play in seaming conditions

 

[Lions81]

so a lead of 116 runs in the first innings is what ud call outplaying by a marginal effect?i think not.....and this was with srinath,kumble and harbhajan...decent indian attack it must be said compared to the english one that was devoid of gough,caddick and thorpe and stewart with the bat.



u must know that the wicket on which they were playing was very similar to english conditions.....and ur in form kumble and harbhajan only took 1 wicket between them in the first innings. im pretty sure that england would have won because the ball was seaming around a bit and batting last on that wicket chasing 300+ would have been impossible for an indian team that struggles to play in seaming conditions

First, bravo for not bringing up the first test. Victories of ten wickets tend to make arguments such as your's look bad.

Regarding the second test, yes, I do consider a first-innings lead of 116 runs a marginal effect, as England went on to bat again, and this time managed to score only 257, leaving India with a target of 374. That is never an easy target to get anywhere in the fourth innings, but India were comfortably set at the end of play at 198/3 with Dravid and Ganguly well-set, and the English seamers in unfavorable conditions. There is no way you can say this test was in England's column.

Regarding the third test, only two innings were played. How can you predict what the pitch would do? On the one hand, you point to the weakened English batting and bowling attacks, and on the other, claim without any evidence whatsoever that they could demolish the Indian bowling and batting in two imaginary innings played out only in the mind. If you can somehow manage to show evidence that England would have won the third test, then please, suggest some lottery numbers for me, as you must certainly be a psychic of the highest caliber.

And let's not forget the Indian tour to England in 2002. 4 Tests, level 1-1. India dominated England in the 3rd Test, England dominated India in the 1st Test, and the 2nd and 4th were comfortably drawn. One could argue that, based on their status as tourists and general poor reputation as travelers, that India were the de facto winners of that tour.

 

[tooextracool]

First, bravo for not bringing up the first test. Victories of ten wickets tend to make arguments such as your's look bad.

do u even read posts properly??i never once stated that england should have won the series and i never once stated that england were not beaten comprehensibly in the first test. there was absoultely no need to bring the 1st test up because i agreed with ur point of view.

Originally posted by Lions81 Regarding the second test, yes, I do consider a first-innings lead of 116 runs a marginal effect, as England went on to bat again, and this time managed to score only 257, leaving India with a target of 374. That is never an easy target to get anywhere in the fourth innings, but India were comfortably set at the end of play at 198/3 with Dravid and Ganguly well-set, and the English seamers in unfavorable conditions. There is no way you can say this test was in England's column. [/B]

this is one of those foolish comments made by people who havent watched the match. england only scored 257 because they were pushing for runs....they needed quick runs because they wanted to put india into bat and have enough time to get them out. there was absolutely no way india were gonna get 374 within the time available and the pitch had really been flat throughout the 5 days so a team scoring 407 in the 1st innings would in no way be struggling to a score of 257 in the 2nd unless they were trying to get quick runs.and india were 211/4 with sachin and laxman well set in the first innings before they collapsed to 291 so theres no reason why they couldnt collapse again particularly when u consider how bad their tail was.

Originally posted by Lions81 Regarding the third test, only two innings were played. How can you predict what the pitch would do? On the one hand, you point to the weakened English batting and bowling attacks, and on the other, claim without any evidence whatsoever that they could demolish the Indian bowling and batting in two imaginary innings played out only in the mind. If you can somehow manage to show evidence that England would have won the third test, then please, suggest some lottery numbers for me, as you must certainly be a psychic of the highest caliber.[/B]

what the hell do u mean how can i predict what the pitch would do??if u had watched the match(which i doubt u had) then u would know that the ball was seaming around all over the place and matthew hoggard was definetly having a ball on that wicket.a lead of 98 runs on that wicket +a score of around 250 in the 2nd innings would have been more than enough for india. yes the english bowling was weak but one must remember that the hoggard thrives in seaming conditions as was the case in b'lore in that test with all the rain and the fact that they had reduced india to 230 odd in the first innings is futher proof of the fact that they were good enough to bowl out india in the 2nd innings as well.

Originally posted by Lions81 And let's not forget the Indian tour to England in 2002. 4 Tests, level 1-1. India dominated England in the 3rd Test, England dominated India in the 1st Test, and the 2nd and 4th were comfortably drawn. One could argue that, based on their status as tourists and general poor reputation as travelers, that India were the de facto winners of that tour. [/B]

what has this got to do with anything??just bringing up random facts does not help your argument. i was making a point that england were more than capable of giving india a fight in india and should have drawn that series if it hadnt been for the rain.

 

[luckyeddie]

calm down, tooextracool.

 

[Lions81]

do u even read posts properly??i never once stated that england should have won the series and i never once stated that england were not beaten comprehensibly in the first test. there was absoultely no need to bring the 1st test up because i agreed with ur point of view.



this is one of those foolish comments made by people who havent watched the match. england only scored 257 because they were pushing for runs....they needed quick runs because they wanted to put india into bat and have enough time to get them out. there was absolutely no way india were gonna get 374 within the time available and the pitch had really been flat throughout the 5 days so a team scoring 407 in the 1st innings would in no way be struggling to a score of 257 in the 2nd unless they were trying to get quick runs.and india were 211/4 with sachin and laxman well set in the first innings before they collapsed to 291 so theres no reason why they couldnt collapse again particularly when u consider how bad their tail was.




what the hell do u mean how can i predict what the pitch would do??if u had watched the match(which i doubt u had) then u would know that the ball was seaming around all over the place and matthew hoggard was definetly having a ball on that wicket.a lead of 98 runs on that wicket +a score of around 250 in the 2nd innings would have been more than enough for india. yes the english bowling was weak but one must remember that the hoggard thrives in seaming conditions as was the case in b'lore in that test with all the rain and the fact that they had reduced india to 230 odd in the first innings is futher proof of the fact that they were good enough to bowl out india in the 2nd innings as well.



what has this got to do with anything??just bringing up random facts does not help your argument. i was making a point that england were more than capable of giving india a fight in india and should have drawn that series if it hadnt been for the rain.

I feel that I read at an acceptable grade level, and I brought up the first test precisely because, as you say later, you are arguing that if not for the rain, England would have drawn the series. The only result obtained from that series was an utterly one-sided one. Regardless of who was in a position of advantage in the second test, which was drawn and unaffected by rain (so really it doesn't concern your argument and should not have been responded to by you), the third test was in far too early a stage to be discussed. You claim Hoggard was having a good time, and his 4-80 in the first innings suggests that. So too does Srinath's 4-73 and Sarandeep Singh's 3-54. So you suggest that a second innings score of 250 + 98 from the first innings would be enough to have won that match. Well, what if England had been bowled out for 125, or 150? Then what? My point is there is absolutely no fair basis for you to claim that had rain not intervened, England would have won that third test. Barely half of the scheduled play took place for that match, and yet you are so keen to give it to England? I don't care what the conditions are. Unless you are a bookie who can give me audiotapes demonstrating that you had convinced Ganguly to lose that test, you really have no way to demonstrate that England would have won the 3rd test.

And Lucky Eddie, I thought his response to me was quite civil compared to ones he's given other posters!

 

[tooextracool]

I feel that I read at an acceptable grade level, and I brought up the first test precisely because, as you say later, you are arguing that if not for the rain, England would have drawn the series. The only result obtained from that series was an utterly one-sided one. Regardless of who was in a position of advantage in the second test, which was drawn and unaffected by rain (so really it doesn't concern your argument and should not have been responded to by you), the third test was in far too early a stage to be discussed. You claim Hoggard was having a good time, and his 4-80 in the first innings suggests that. So too does Srinath's 4-73 and Sarandeep Singh's 3-54. So you suggest that a second innings score of 250 + 98 from the first innings would be enough to have won that match. Well, what if England had been bowled out for 125, or 150? Then what? My point is there is absolutely no fair basis for you to claim that had rain not intervened, England would have won that third test. Barely half of the scheduled play took place for that match, and yet you are so keen to give it to England? I don't care what the conditions are. Unless you are a bookie who can give me audiotapes demonstrating that you had convinced Ganguly to lose that test, you really have no way to demonstrate that England would have won the 3rd test.

And Lucky Eddie, I thought his response to me was quite civil compared to ones he's given other posters!

ahh i guess your the sort of person who if india were 200/9 chasing 400 would say "what if nehra and zaheer khan scored 100s" . the fact is india had only 1 front line pace bowler in srinath on a seaming wicket and it wouldnt matter if he took 4 wickets, because someone else would need to take the other 6. when u look at the performances in the 1st innings england out performed india and at 33/0 in 2nd innings it must be said they looked well set to get at least 250.yes only half the match was over but that half was so dominated by england that it really would have needed a miracle for india to comeback from a 98 run margin on a seaming wicket(where they usually fail).As i said england "should" have and probably would have won that test match quite easily but there'll always be some smart alec coming up after the match (who wouldnt even have watched it) saying "what if"

 

[marc71178]

Regarding the second test, yes, I do consider a first-innings lead of 116 runs a marginal effect, as England went on to bat again, and this time managed to score only 257, leaving India with a target of 374.

116 runs when the scores are 407 vs 291 is quite a big gap actually.

Since England went onto 257, it suggests run-making was getting more difficult, and thus a target of 374 was very hard, even nigh on impossible.

 

[Swervy]

despite whatever figures that are being thrown around here,I nad may others beleived at the time that England looked like the better team in that series in India.

I also beleive that on the whole, England were the better team in the series in England.

 

[Lions81]

despite whatever figures that are being thrown around here,I nad may others beleived at the time that England looked like the better team in that series in India.

I also beleive that on the whole, England were the better team in the series in England.

Ah I see, so numbers aren't really as important as the general consensus. I suppose Rousseau would be proud.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. In my opinion, India outperformed England at home and away. In your opinion, the opposite occurred. I don't think I'll convince any of you otherwise, nor will you convince me. The debating was fun though!

But still, the records indicate that India won the home series and drew the away series. 8D

 

[Swervy]

But still, the records indicate that India won the home series and drew the away series. 8D

Indeed..and that is what matters at the end of the day

 

[biased indian]

despite whatever figures that are being thrown around here,I nad may others beleived at the time that England looked like the better team in that series in India.

I also beleive that on the whole, England were the better team in the series in England.

a team losing 1-0 and drawing the home series 1-1 should be a better team tahn the other . so i guess even though the result is 3-0 in W.I
W.I Is a better side

 

[Tom Halsey]

What do you mean?