How long will England be no.1 for?

[tooextracool]

Winning in the subcontinent is easier than its been for the past 30 years. Whether or not you think England's bowlers might not be very effective in the subcontinent, there is no denying the fact that for the first time in a very very long time there is not one great spinner in any of the subcontinental sides. In fact with the exception of Ajmal and Harbhajan, there are few that could even put their hands up as being conclusively test class. And its not like the pace attacks for any of the subcontinental sides are particularly threatening either.

Fact of the matter is that the most likely result in any subcontinental test match is the draw. So lets not get carried away with the idea that a team like England have no hope in the subcontinent, especially when they have arguably the best spinner in the world turning out for them.

 

[Bun]

Yeah, it is a bit. If by "misleading" you mean "an indisputable fact".

wrong.

swann is still unproven, and if this series is anything to go by has proven to a big fat dud.

it might not fit into convenient theories, but fact is swann is nowhere as versatile as people think he is.

 

[Uppercut]

No one's better than him. Arguably he's overrated, arguably the Indian batting lineup have the measure of him, arguably he wouldn't be able to hack it in the subcontinent. But that's besides the point, there certainly isn't anyone better, or even anyone you could make a reasonable case for being better. Show me a spinner that's better than Swann and I'll show you a spinner that's retired.

 

[tooextracool]

Given the comments people have made in this thread, you'd think Kumble, Murali and Qadir were still running wild in the subcontinent.

 

[MW1304]

A few weeks ago we had no hope on our own patch. That went well.

Oh and lets all judge Swann on one series. In fact, not even that, two games he's been well below par. Yes he's had a very poor series and I more than anyone am worried about how he's shaping up, but its kinda hypocritical to accuse people of massively overrating someone, only to massively underrate them yourself.

 

[Prince EWS]

if this series is anything to go by has proven to a big fat dud

Ahh I like where this is going. I'll be sure to use the same logic (ie. that performing poorly throughout the 2011 Indian Test tour of England means you're a big fat dud) next time I rate some of CricketWeb's other favourite players.

 

[four_or_six]

It's not as if the opposition spinner has been any good.

 

[Bun]

No one's better than him. Arguably he's overrated, arguably the Indian batting lineup have the measure of him, arguably he wouldn't be able to hack it in the subcontinent. But that's besides the point, there certainly isn't anyone better, or even anyone you could make a reasonable case for being better. Show me a spinner that's better than Swann and I'll show you a spinner that's retired.

hence the comment misleading.

the qualification 'best' here doesn't mean anything. plus i still believe overall harby's done well than swann. swann's being found out, and am pretty sure in the coming year or two is really going to struggle against better players of spinners.

i am putting my bets on shakib al hasan to come really good.

 

[Bun]

Ahh I like where this is going. I'll be sure to use the same logic (ie. that performing poorly throughout the 2011 Indian Test tour of England means you're a big fat dud) next time I rate some of CricketWeb's other favourite players.

as if it's his first bad series. gimme a break!

chap's massively overrated, end of.

 

[Uppercut]

It's hardly misleading to say they have the best spinner when they have the best spinner. It's just one more area of the game that they're better at than everyone else.

 

[Bun]

A few weeks ago we had no hope on our own patch. That went well.

Oh and lets all judge Swann on one series. In fact, not even that, two games he's been well below par. Yes he's had a very poor series and I more than anyone am worried about how he's shaping up, but its kinda hypocritical to accuse people of massively overrating someone, only to massively underrate them yourself.

it's india's first lost series in 3 years. might as well apply your logic and say we are still no.1

 

[Tom Halsey]

If England played a series in India and it started tomorrow, England would (or at least should) be favourites. Incredible how they're still being underrated.

SA are quite a lot better than India and a bigger threat.

 

[marc71178]

Actually I'm quite enjoying seeing England being so under-rated, the bookies are tending to agree - £200 on Trent Bridge, £150 on Edgbaston and the odds for the Oval are longer than either of the previous 2!

 

[MW1304]

it's india's first lost series in 3 years. might as well apply your logic and say we are still no.1

There are so many different factors in the battle for number one, though. That is an India team in which almost every player has been considerably outplayed in a marquee series, whereas this is one individual playing poorly for two games - the two are just not equatable. Add in the fact that India have had a very good competition for that number one position in the form of England - who have played superbly for a while now and not lost a series since the 08/09 period, before comprehensively outplaying the team they had been performing to a similar/slighty lower level than. Swann, on the other hand, has been outperforming all other spinners in the world, pretty consistently, over the past few year, and its not massively close (statistical proof, if needed). The only real competition is Saeed Ajmal and a career of 11 Tests with a higher average doesn't do it for me. This is not to say that Graeme Swann is the greatest spin bowler of all time, it is more an indictment of world spin bowling stocks.

In any case, even if you argue that he is not the best spinner in the world, I still feel you are underarting him because of a couple of bad games.

 

[Cevno]

If England played a series in India and it started tomorrow, England would (or at least should) be favourites. Incredible how they're still being underrated.

SA are quite a lot better than India and a bigger threat.

No they wouldn't tbh.
The Australian dominant team were never clear favorites in India IIRC. India have lost 2 series in India since 1990 IIRC and both were affected for different reasons.

 

[Cevno]

Btw, How many tests does India need to win against Srilanka or at home against Australia to regain the number 1 status?

 

[NasserFan207]

The problem in general for subcontinental sides is that collectively their bowling standards have fallen. Without Murali, Kumble etc touring Sri Lanka and India is not such a challenging proposition. Winning there may still prove tough to be sure, but I don't see India rolling over sides on a fifth day bunsen burner anymore.

India played Swann perfectly during the test series. Its quite clear that if you allow Swann to 'bowl at you' he will eventually be successful. Aggression is the best option against him. He's still a class spinner though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Btw, How many tests does India need to win against Srilanka or at home against Australia to regain the number 1 status?

Would imagine it's partly dependent on the 4th test.

As to the question in hand, it's too early to say. England are #1, yes and have earned the right to be considered just about the best test side as of now, but we haven't actually beaten SA since 2004/05 nor won a (non-Bangladesh) series on the subcontinent since 00/01.

I think we'll be better placed to given an answer this time next year.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

England will probably win the series against Pak in UAE, but I think beating Sri Lanka will be very tough.

 

[Jacknife]

wrong.

swann is still unproven, and if this series is anything to go by has proven to a big fat dud.

it might not fit into convenient theories, but fact is swann is nowhere as versatile as people think he is.

Give it a rest, this is the first series, well the last couple of tests in this series he's bowled poorly and seen as it's about the first time in ages he's had a couple of poor games, where even when he didn't take wickets, he gave Strauss plenty of control in the game, to make the most of the 3 seamers.In the 1st Test at Lords, he bowled 41 overs for 114 runs and took a couple of wickets, going at 2.7 rpo, I'd love to know how that is being a dud, especially considering what the pitch offered.
It seems that it's you who has trouble with Swann not fitting into your own convenient theories. If we go by your logic, so many of the Indian players are big fat duds.

Listen mate, no one claims Swann is all time great or anything like that, it's just since he's come on the scene he's been the best spin bowler in the world and has had a huge hand in turning England in to the team that they are, without him England wouldn't have as a effective bowling attack by a long shot.