***Official*** England in India

[kvemuri]

England have shown against Warne and to a lesser extent against Kaneria that they can handle quality spin, but there's a good reason why it's so hard to win in India, and it's not because of the pace bowlers.

I agree wholesalely with the above comment, except after watching the form of the spin duo of Kumble and Harbhajan and how Cook and Collingwood negotiated them, even Panesar hung around for more than an hour, makes me feel that England have more than a good chance of doing well here.

 

[superkingdave]

well Bell is 23, Cook is 21, Panesar is 23 and Pietersen just turned 25. From those in the squad, Anderson is 23, Plunket is 20 and Prior has just turned 24

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I agree wholesalely with the above comment, except after watching the form of the spin duo of Kumble and Harbhajan and how Cook and Collingwood negotiated them, even Panesar hung around for more than an hour, makes me feel that England have more than a good chance of doing well here.

I hear that Cook has a Graeme-Smith-like legside tendency. If that's the case, what are the odds that India can maximize upon that? Genuine question.

 

[shankar]

In the innings before the operation on his elbow, Sachin looked very scratchy and it seemed very likely to me that he was in decline. However, in the innings since the operation, he's actually looked good and has been steadily improving, but not been able to convert into decent scores. Infact in today's inning he was playing very assuredly and handled Hoggard and Flintoff quite comfortably. But as has been the pattern in the innings since his operation, he got out to an innocuous delivery in the 15-30 period. Now I don't know the reason why this is happening and whether he'll be able to correct it. But just looking at his scores over the last few innings would give the impression that he's scratched around and got out whereas he's actually looked pretty solid and in good form for most of the time.

 

[kvemuri]

I hear that Cook has a Graeme-Smith-like legside tendency. If that's the case, what are the odds that India can maximize upon that? Genuine question.

Hmm..well leg before decisions would be the appropriate way to go, again comes down to whether Indians can exploit that or not. After watching Monty spin the ball off the turf yesterday, one can only hope that Kumble and Harbhajan can do the trick too given their current form.

 

[Anil]

In the innings before the operation on his elbow, Sachin looked very scratchy and it seemed very likely to me that he was in decline. However, in the innings since the operation, he's actually looked good and has been steadily improving, but not been able to convert into decent scores. Infact in today's inning he was playing very assuredly and handled Hoggard and Flintoff quite comfortably. But as has been the pattern in the innings since his operation, he got out to an innocuous delivery in the 15-30 period. Now I don't know the reason why this is happening and whether he'll be able to correct it. But just looking at his scores over the last few innings would give the impression that he's scratched around and got out whereas he's actually looked pretty solid and in good form for most of the time.

...whether he scratches around or plays solidly, the point is that he has to contribute to the team cause which he has just not been doing enough.....the days are past when his mere presence was enough to send shivers down the spines of opposing bowlers....

 

[Tom Halsey]

little ()

You're a git.

 

[Tom Halsey]

England have shown against Warne and to a lesser extent against Kaneria that they can handle quality spin, but there's a good reason why it's so hard to win in India, and it's not because of the pace bowlers.

Err... the same Warne who had his most successful series ever?

 

[TT Boy]

Err... the same Warne who had his most successful series ever?

Also Kaneria bowled very well against England, considering the conditions and that fact that most of are players could not read his googly. Also unlike the Indians he could wrap up the English tail in a over.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I hear that Cook has a Graeme-Smith-like legside tendency. If that's the case, what are the odds that India can maximize upon that? Genuine question.

Just outside the left-handers off stump there's a great dirty patch of rough, particularly at the end Panesar was bowling to. Harbhajan had Cook in trouble with the arm ball and doosra on day one, and may look to bowl a few more, especially with Cook looking legside. If he looks to put a full ball on off or just outside through mid-wicket, Harbhajan could, from around the wicket a) bowl him with the doosra (or have him caught at bat-pad if he defends to leg) from, or b) draw him into the shot with the off-break and have him caught close on the off side. Either way relies on Harbhajan mixing up the flight and pace more than the variation.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Also Kaneria bowled very well against England, considering the conditions and that fact that most of are players could not read his googly. Also unlike the Indians he could wrap up the English tail in a over.

Yeah, not having a go at Kaneria at all.

I just found it a very strange comment considering it was in his own estimation Warne's best series ever, and he tied us in knots.

 

[aussie]

england in a fair position here, just saw Panesar' s delivery to Kaif & yeah the kid has ability. Going back to the game, England hopefully with get the final wicket quickely & hopefully look to set India anything above 300 & i'd back them to go 1-0 up..

 

[aussie]

And if both had played then Hoggard probably wouldn't have done.

yea he may not & admitedly before this game you wouldn't think that would be a bad thing because no one would have expected Hoggard to be a bowler who might be bale to take a 5 for in sub-continent conditions. Might be a tight statement to make but i reckon a Simon Jones fully fit could have equalled Hoggard or done better if he had played..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Err... the same Warne who had his most successful series ever?

Did you watch the English batsmen play him? You can't tell me they handled him poorly for the large part. Statistics are irrelevant here.

He just bowled superbly and cashed in with the wickets that no one else was taking. Not taking anything away from Warne. I'm giving him more credit in fact, because England played him better than they have in the recent past and he still took a Zimbabwean-career worth of wickets.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just outside the left-handers off stump there's a great dirty patch of rough, particularly at the end Panesar was bowling to. Harbhajan had Cook in trouble with the arm ball and doosra on day one, and may look to bowl a few more, especially with Cook looking legside. If he looks to put a full ball on off or just outside through mid-wicket, Harbhajan could, from around the wicket a) bowl him with the doosra (or have him caught at bat-pad if he defends to leg) from, or b) draw him into the shot with the off-break and have him caught close on the off side. Either way relies on Harbhajan mixing up the flight and pace more than the variation.

It's all theoretical really. From an Indian or neutral perspective, you'd like to see him work things out like that, but from an English perspective, the agenda being pushed would that Harbhajan is in some of the worst form of his career (statistically at least).

 

[Tom Halsey]

Did you watch the English batsmen play him? You can't tell me they handled him poorly for the large part. Statistics are irrelevant here.

He just bowled superbly and cashed in with the wickets that no one else was taking. Not taking anything away from Warne. I'm giving him more credit in fact, because England played him better than they have in the recent past and he still took a Zimbabwean-career worth of wickets.

Warne bowled brilliantly no doubt, but the English definitely played him poorly.

Trescothick - played him well.
Strauss - for the most part, didn't look like he had much of a clue - to his credit he improved towards the end.
Vaughan - one innings aside, played him very poorly.
Bell - didn't have a clue.
Pietersen - Pietersen did play Warne quite well - he did get out a few times, but he did make 4 scores, hammering Warne for some huge 6s on each occasion.
Flintoff - also played him quite well in all fairness.
Jones - played him awfully.
Giles - The Oval aside, he played him incredibly poorly, played lots of needless sweeps.
Hoggard - was never really going to have much of a clue.
Harmison - played him okay actually, I remember him tracking him for 6 a few times.
Jones - also played him well, some exquisite cover drives.

Of the top 7, 4 played Warne very poorly, with some very soft dismissals. Warne did bowl very well though.

Our success was to do with our bowling, and playing their seamers very well. We didn't play Warne well.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Might be a tight statement to make but i reckon a Simon Jones fully fit could have equalled Hoggard or done better if he had played..

You can't just say bowlers would have bettered 5/57 against this Indian batting line-up.

 

[simmy]

You can't just say bowlers would have bettered 5/57 against this Indian batting line-up.

Thats why he said it was a "tight statement"

 

[aussie]

You can't just say bowlers would have bettered 5/57 against this Indian batting line-up.

yea yea i know, has i said a tight statement that..

 

[TT Boy]

You can't just say bowlers would have bettered 5/57 against this Indian batting line-up.

Simon Jones line and length (which was the key for Hoggard’s wickets) is far more erratic and less consistent. Jones would have been a asset in India, he is a ‘better’ bowler but like Tom said that doesn’t mean he would walk away with better figures. Shane Warne is a better bowler than Daryl Tuffey but I know who I would rather have on a green top at Auckland.