***Official*** England in India

[Swervy]

so basically he had 3 good years out of 17, didn't he ? Rest all was hype.

no not at all..i just couldnt be bothered going back further..what I am saying is his performances started dipping slightly after the 2001, and they have continued dipping since, which suggests that the back end of his peak was about 5 years ago

The bold part is the keyword there.

of course

 

[Sanz]

well if Iam getting stick for saying they are overarted after they were completely destroyed by England, then imagine the stick I would have got if I had said that after they won

So a 1-1 draw is 'Complete Destruction', isn't it ? Please dont troll. That means when India went to England and drew a series 1-1, it was a complete destruction of England, and similarly we also completely destroyed Australia in 2004 and then destroyed Pakistan. wow who wouldn't have felt at top after so much destruction.

And no you not getting the stick for saying it, but for the fact that you come out of nowhere after every India loss and say things like - 'I have been saying India are overrated' and every time Tendulkar fails 'He is past his best for 5 years' .

 

[Swervy]

So a 1-1 draw is 'Complete Destruction', isn't it ? Please dont troll. That means when India went to England and drew a series 1-1, it was a complete destruction of England, and similarly we also completely destroyed Australia in 2004 and then destroyed Pakistan. wow who wouldn't have felt at top after so much destruction. .

well India were completely outclassed in the last test..thats what I mean

And no you not getting the stick for saying it, but for the fact that you come out of nowhere after every India loss and say things like - 'I have been saying India are overrated' and every time Tendulkar fails 'He is past his best for 5 years' .

but I think you will find I have been saying the same for a while now

 

[wpdavid]

lol, I was juz kidding. I felt Marc was trying the reverse fortune thingy, where you predict a horrible loss for your team and then they end up doing well.

Oh, fair enough. 7 - 0 to India it is then.

 

[Sanz]

well India were completely outclassed in the last test..thats what I mean

So were England in the 2nd test, they lost the test in 3 days. At least India lasted 5 days, despite dropping 16 catches, giving the toss advantage to England, so yes we were outclassed but it also had a lot to with some factors that were not inflicted by England such as dropping 15 catches, opting to field after winning the toss and despite of that we managed to drag it to 5th day, hardly a destruction I would say. Have a look at the board and tell me how many English fans were sure of an England win at the end of the 4th day ?

Please keep in mind that I am not taking anything away from England's win, they deserved to win, but would you call it a complete decimation If England lose a test after their fielders dropped 15-16 catches ?

but I think you will find I have been saying the same for a while now

No you say it only after India loses, If you are so sure about India being over hyped then you should say this before the series/match starts, not aftre the loss. Infact it was some Indian fans who had predicted this series to be 1-1 (or a draw), most English fans had declared it as 3-0 in India's favor esp after giles, Vaughan and Jones withdrew from the tour. If we are so over rated, we should have lost the series to England, If England are so under-rated, they should have won the series, not drawn it.

 

[Swervy]

So were England in the 2nd test, they lost the test in 3 days. At least India lasted 5 days, despite dropping 16 catches, giving the toss advantage to England, so yes we were outclassed but it also had a lot to with some factors that were not inflicted by England such as dropping 15 catches, opting to field after winning the toss and despite of that we managed to drag it to 5th day, hardly a destruction I would say. Have a look at the board and tell me how many English fans were sure of an England win at the end of the 4th day ?.

Yeah India won by 9 wickets, but I think if you look at the second test session by session, it was relatively even up to a session into Englands second innings.

In the final test England were quite clearly on top for most of the game, apart from possibly when England were 5 down in the second innings, (and so India realistcally had a sniff at a win for no more than say half an hour or so in the game).

I just dont understand why people seem to separate fielding in a test match from batting and bowling...you win games by doing all three well..if you f*** up by dropping catches, then tough, you havent executed well enough..its part of the game.
Same with the toss situation..you have a captain, who has to make a chioce, you have a captain you messes up, well tough again, the captain is a part of your team, and he should have known better....to be honest though, England batted(at more vital times anyway) and bowled and fielded better better in general throughout the series IMO

You are right, most people wouldnt have EXPECTED the win at the end of the fourth day, the draw was the favourite result, but given how well England have bowled throughout theseries and how fragile the Indian middle order can be, it didnt surprise me to see them lose as I am sure it didnt surprise many...what was shocking was how quick it fell apart for India

Please keep in mind that I am not taking anything away from England's win, they deserved to win, but would you call it a complete decimation If England lose a test after their fielders dropped 15-16 catches ?.

yeah I would if they had been dominated for most of the game,as fielding is part of the game

No you say it only after India loses, If you are so sure about India being over hyped then you should say this before the series/match starts, not aftre the loss. Infact it was some Indian fans who had predicted this series to be 1-1 (or a draw), most English fans had declared it as 3-0 in India's favor esp after giles, Vaughan and Jones withdrew from the tour. If we are so over rated, we should have lost the series to England, If England are so under-rated, they should have won the series, not drawn it.

well I am sure I have said it before about India..in fact some people have accused me of being anti-Indian (which is complete rubbish)

Given the problems England had with injuries etc, given Indias reputation, then yes India should have won the series convincingly.
Teams with those problems will rarely win any series, let alone a series in India.

Are England underrated???? If so, really what more do they have to do to justify the position they hold as the worlds second best team

 

[kvemuri]

I'm on record as saying I'd rather win the world cup over winning a test series in England or a Australia.

Well, I take that back. The sadness I felt after the WC loss was nothing compared to the absolute disgust I feel right now, after the heartless and inexcusable capitulation to the England 'A' team. Test cricket is whats important, and we need to get rid of Dhoni, Pathan, Yuvraj, Sehwag, and Harbhajan for at least the next one series, so they can get it through their heads that they can't take their spots for granted.

Sehwag: Lose some weight and get fit fatass. Also, learn the 'forward defensive shot' and the 'leave'. Also, I would like to remind you that you don't have to play at the short ball.

Pathan: Um, I know Kumble is the best bowler India has, but we want you to replicate his attitude, approach and success and not his pace.

Dhoni: Die. Please, just die.
uvraj: Test matches are not ODI

Aren't you going overboard a bit? sure they fell apart like 9 pins and it was pathetic , but come on (even after Dhoni's atrocious shot) nobody died per se. Throughout the series England 'A' (as you say) has played fantastic cricket, we didn't cross the 350 mark once in the series, thats a telling factor. As bad as batting was I would say it was England's bowling that made a difference, rather a combination of both.

Having said that I think you are being extremely harsh on the likes of Dhoni and Yuvraj. Sure Dhoni played completely senseless cricket (thats putting it politely), i am not even going to argue on that, but i think he does deserve another chance as does Yuvi. Say if that shot had landed in the stands and he had continued to take apart the English attack, we would've been hailing his effort and wasn't it 3 tests ago that when the rest of the team was falling like 9 pins on a seaming track Yuvraj was being hailed for his effort.

My point being that there will be victories and there will be loses (ugly ones like this one) and its time us fans took both gracefully, as ugly as the loss maybe. England played extremely well were the better side on the day and deserved to win. Dhoni and Yuvi hopefully will learn from their mistakes (its early days for both in the longer version of game) and hopefully will draw positives in the future from this experience.

Finally I am not advocating changes shouldn't happen, more than Dhoni/Yuvi I would take a hard look at Viru and Harbhajan for starters. Anyways thats my 2 cents.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah India won by 9 wickets, but I think if you look at the second test session by session, it was relatively even up to a session into Englands second innings.

Despite of all that, the test ended within 3 days man, India won by 9 wickets. I dont think you can call it any less dominating than what England did in the 3rd test.

I just dont understand why people seem to separate fielding in a test match from batting and bowling...you win games by doing all three well..if you f*** up by dropping catches, then tough, you havent executed well enough..its part of the game.
Same with the toss situation..you have a captain, who has to make a chioce, you have a captain you messes up, well tough again, the captain is a part of your team, and he should have known better....

All that is true, but it shows our incompetence rather than England's dominance, unless you are going to argue that Indian fielders dropped catches because English batsmen made them do it, same with Rahul's decision to field. IMO England appear to have dominated because of it and not despite of it. If England had really dominated then they should have scored atleast 500 runs in the first innings and at least 300 in the second. The fact that they struggled to score 400 and 200 in innings clearly tells us that they didn't dominate with the bat. They did dominate with the ball that too on 5th day (complete domination in post lunch sessions I would say) and on the second day when they had India on 30/3.

Are England underrated???? If so, really what more do they have to do to justify the position they hold as the worlds second best team

You tell us, when India win in Pakistan, draw a series in Australia, england, win pretty much all @ home between 2001-2004, you call us over-rated, yet one series draw by England gets compared to their Ashes win and you dont think that is overstatment of their achievement ?

I personally dont think England are over/under rated, but at the same time I dont think India are either. It is you who thinks that India are over-rated and England are not.

 

[silentstriker]

Aren't you going overboard a bit? sure they fell apart like 9 pins and it was pathetic , but come on (even after Dhoni's atrocious shot) nobody died per se. Throughout the series England 'A' (as you say) has played fantastic cricket, we didn't cross the 350 mark once in the series, thats a telling factor. As bad as batting was I would say it was England's bowling that made a difference, rather a combination of both.

Our failure at Mumbai just points out the reasons why our team has never been the top team in the world. Our players just dont show the application needed (exception of Kumble, Dravid) to consistantly win. They score a big hundred and inflate their averages, but then when the team needs them to play a certain way, they still go for that shot and the big score. Sometimes that works, and their average blossoms...but a lot of times it doesn't and we all suffer.

Having said that I think you are being extremely harsh on the likes of Dhoni and Yuvraj. Sure Dhoni played completely senseless cricket (thats putting it politely), i am not even going to argue on that, but i think he does deserve another chance as does Yuvi.

Chances chances chances. If players wilt under pressure, they don't deserve another chance without playing at least another year of domestic cricket to make them more mentally tough.

Say if that shot had landed in the stands and he had continued to take apart the English attack, we would've been hailing his effort

That's why India fails. We hail a bad shot when its successfull. That was a bad shot, whether it succeeded or not. We encourage these *******s to play shots and call it 'counterattack' when it works, and 'foolishness' when it doesn't. There is a time and a place for counterattack, and that wasn't it. That shot would be foolish whether it worked or not.

 

[Sanz]

Given the problems England had with injuries etc, given Indias reputation, then yes India should have won the series convincingly.
Teams with those problems will rarely win any series, let alone a series in India.

You also have to keep in mind that India offered England pretty fair pitch and not absolute turners that we used to make. If england had newcomers, Its not like our team was same as 2003-2004, we had our share of newcomers as well, infact half of the team was new Chawla, Santh, Munaf, Dhoni, Jaffer. So let's not get into injuries and debutants. Many people believe that Anderson, Cook, Collingwood, Udal, Panesa did as well as anyone could.

 

[Swervy]

You also have to keep in mind that India offered England pretty fair pitch and not absolute turners that we used to make. If england had newcomers, Its not like our team was same as 2003-2004, we had our share of newcomers as well, infact half of the team was new Chawla, Santh, Munaf, Dhoni, Jaffer. So let's not get into injuries and debutants. Many people believe that Anderson, Cook, Collingwood, Udal, Panesa did as well as anyone could.

fair enough about the pitches..but they still suited the Indians more than they suited the English..and anyway, I think if India is to progress they have to start offering pitches at home more like those abroad...in fact though the fact that the pitches gave some hope to the pacers probably helped India in some way, given how poorly Harbhajan bowled,and gave Munaf and Sreesanth something to play with

 

[kvemuri]

Our failure at Mumbai just points out the reasons why our team has never been the top team in the world. Our players just dont show the application needed (exception of Kumble, Dravid) to consistantly win. They score a big hundred and inflate their averages, but then when the team needs them to play a certain way, they still go for that shot and the big score. Sometimes that works, and their average blossoms...but a lot of times it doesn't and we all suffer.



Chances chances chances. If players wilt under pressure, they don't deserve another chance without playing at least another year of domestic cricket to make them more mentally tough.



That's why India fails. We hail a bad shot when its successfull. That was a bad shot, whether it succeeded or not. We encourage these *******s to play shots and call it 'counterattack' when it works, and 'foolishness' when it doesn't. There is a time and a place for counterattack, and that wasn't it. That shot would be foolish whether it worked or not.

First off that was one heck of a post, excellent points and i tip my hat to you, except for the asterisks there .

Chances chances chances. If players wilt under pressure, they don't deserve another chance without playing at least another year of domestic cricket to make them more mentally tough..

Although I agree with the gist of what you are saying..I don't believe for one sec that our domestic system is well refined to teach players how to play under pressure. Heck I don't believe our domestic is anything comparable to county cricket or domestic cricket played in Australia.

 

[Swervy]

Despite of all that, the test ended within 3 days man, India won by 9 wickets. I dont think you can call it any less dominating than what England did in the 3rd test..

well I think just by watching the game it was blatently obvious England dominated the third test more than India did in the second....a 38 run lead on the first innings isnt domination throughout a test, India pulled away after England gained the lead with one wicket down and then proceeded to collapse. England went from a slight chance of pushing a shock win or more likely drawing the game(which really was by far the most likely result for pretty much most of the test), to certain defeat in the space of about a session.
In the third, England gained a 120 odd run first innings lead, and that thanks mostly to a 60 run 9th wicket partnership by India...India never realistically had a chance of victory in that game apart from a brief spell in Englands second innings...yeah India didnt take their chances..well thats playing under pressure for you.
England in the first innings outscored India total match score with 8 wickets down.

The second match was clearly closer than the final test

All that is true, but it shows our incompetence rather than England's dominance, unless you are going to argue that Indian fielders dropped catches because English batsmen made them do it, same with Rahul's decision to field. IMO England appear to have dominated because of it and not despite of it. If England had really dominated then they should have scored atleast 500 runs in the first innings and at least 300 in the second. The fact that they struggled to score 400 and 200 in innings clearly tells us that they didn't dominate with the bat. They did dominate with the ball that too on 5th day (complete domination in post lunch sessions I would say) and on the second day when they had India on 30/3..

I agree, India gifted England opportunities throughout the series..but what are you going to do..thats not exactly Englands fault is it. England generally through the series took the chances to get closer to victory throughout a game more than India did, its what good teams do!!!

But in general England managed to pull of what could only be considered a positive result for them given the circumstances by being a superior team in most aspecs of the game, whether that be batting bowling , fielding or tactically

You tell us, when India win in Pakistan, draw a series in Australia, england, win pretty much all @ home between 2001-2004, you call us over-rated, yet one series draw by England gets compared to their Ashes win and you dont think that is overstatment of their achievement ?

I personally dont think England are over/under rated, but at the same time I dont think India are either. It is you who thinks that India are over-rated and England are not.

Pakistan= as I say, when India beat pakistan, that was about as bad a Pakistan team as I have seen for 20 years

Australia= yeah, they did well in Australia, but surely even the most one eyed Indian fan could see Australia didnt play well....but credit to India, they forced Australia into a position which Australia ahve rarely been in for 10 years, and Australia were outplayed in a drawn series

re; the draw vs England...you seem to miss the point..England were missing Trescothick,Vaughan, Simon Jones (probably the player that would have had a huge impact), Giles ( )and for one test Harmison (all players integral to Englands successes in the last couple of years) and had a captain thrust into the job at short notice, who had to captain what is widely regarded the toughest tour in world cricket...thats why it was such an acheivment.
If England had a full strength team, then 1-1 wouldnt have been such an acheivement

 

[superkingdave]

Despite of all that, the test ended within 3 days man, India won by 9 wickets. I dont think you can call it any less dominating than what England did in the 3rd test.

Small point, but the test did not end within 3 days. Yes i realise that you aren't counting the stoppages but even then there were 309.1 overs which makes it about 3.5 days. It was 70 overs less than the 3rd test however.

 

[adharcric]

As an Indian fan, I want 0-7 India.

This will force some changes. I feel we have gotten too complacent. We need to drop half the team....seriously, we do. We might lose the WI series, but at least it will be a message. When they come back for the SA tour, they will know that their place hinges on performance and playing responsibally.

That was the worst collapse in Indian history, 15.2 overs????? What the hell is that?

This is disgusting. Please don't overreact like the stupid majority of Indian cricket fans, I know you're better than that. We had a collapse in a test match because some guys weren't fit for test cricket and others simply weren't fit. Our one-day form has been solid of late, no reason to bash them for that. Dhoni is our most destructive one-day bastman at the moment along with Yuvraj (and Dravid). They should've learnt their overall lesson about playing responsible cricket already. If they defeat England 7-0, doesn't that mean anything to you in terms of how they have responded to the debacle? Our one-day team does not have serious issues, the test team does. Wait until we get back to test cricket to suggest dropping half the team ... and for God's sake, cheer for India, maybe not for Sehwag as I too am praying he's unfit for the first ODI so we get to see Raina in and 5 bowlers playing, but for India yes!

 

[Sanz]

England went from a slight chance of pushing a shock win or more likely drawing the game(which really was by far the most likely result for pretty much most of the test), to certain defeat in the space of about a session.

Thank You..So England was never in with a chance of winning the game and yet India won the test by 9 wickets, if that is not domination that what is ? To be frank England;s only presence in that match came when Flintoff and Jones put up 100 run partnership, else the game would have been over in 2 days. If that is not domination then I dont know what is.

In the third, England gained a 120 odd run first innings lead, and that thanks mostly to a 60 run 9th wicket partnership by India...India never realistically had a chance of victory in that game apart from a brief spell in Englands second innings...yeah India didnt take their chances..well thats playing under pressure for you.

9th wicket or 10 wicket partnership, it was still Indian batting which England couldn't get out. It was not as if England allowed them to make those runs. As for your statement in Bold (by me), are you saying that England had a realistic chance of winning the test at the end of day 1, 2 or 3 ? That's basically stating the obvious and exactly my point I have been trying to make all along that after England's collapse in the second innings, India were in with a chance to win as well despite us dropping 15-16 catches and England getting best of the conditions to bat.

England in the first innings outscored India total match score with 8 wickets down.

It doesn't matter. In the second test England were 139/9, india outscored them with the loss of one wicket, so pretty ir-relevant stat that is.

The second match was clearly closer than the final test

Rubbbish. A test ends in 3 days despite England having the best batting conditions and a test ends in 5 day again England had the best batting conditions.

I agree, India gifted England opportunities throughout the series..but what are you going to do..thats not exactly Englands fault is it.

No, it's not England's fault, but neither is it their domination. India dropped catches, shows India's incompetence, not England's dominance. Had England put on massive scores e.g. 550-600, then it would have been called a domination, instead they crawled to 400 in the first inning and 190 odd in second inning, hardly a domination of Indian bowling. England's only domination came in on the post lunch session on day 5 and briefly on day 2.

Pakistan= as I say, when India beat pakistan, that was about as bad a Pakistan team as I have seen for 20 years

Didn't the same team beat England 2-0 ?

Australia= yeah, they did well in Australia, but surely even the most one eyed Indian fan could see Australia didnt play well....but credit to India, they forced Australia into a position which Australia ahve rarely been in for 10 years, and Australia were outplayed in a drawn series

This !! Exactly this rubbish ****es people off. When India do well, it was because the other team played poorly, isn't it ? Dare I say that England did well because Sehwag, Tendulkar etc didn't play well and/or out of form (and they were out of form before the series started) ?

If England had a full strength team, then 1-1 wouldnt have been such an acheivement

It would have been to many English fans, Browse through this thread.

 

[Swervy]

right, lets just agree to disagree, this could turn into a Richard-type bore-a-thon


Lets call it a draw Sanz (1-1 I reckon)

 

[Jono]

OK,maybe its more of the more fanatical people who jump on the India bandwagon as soon as they win a test, or have a good session...or one of the bowlers beats the bat..or whatever

So this was all about the trolls getting under your skin? Not media hype or the general concensus from regular posters on this board? Really Swervy...

One thing is for sure, India made the most of a depleted Australian team who didnt play particularly well and simply were outplayed for most of the time...but hey ho!!!! Well done India

Yeah Australia were obviously no doubt depleted, but did you see India's bowling line-ups in those 4 tests? Pitiful. How we managed to draw was all due, in every single part, to our batting. At least Australia had a half-decent Lee for 2 tests and a Gillespie for another 2. India had a half-fit Harbhajan for the first test, Zaheer broke down after the 1st and during the 3rd, and don't even make me mention Ashish Nehra.

2nd test??? erm...I really dont know...again well played India, against a weakened England team who fell apart after pushing India hard for most of the game

India turned a certain draw into a win. They basically only played 3 days of cricket.

well if Iam getting stick for saying they are overarted after they were completely destroyed by England, then imagine the stick I would have got if I had said that after they won

Lol, fair play. You would have looked less conceited however, because after the Indian collapse in the 3rd you could have said "See, told you so", rather than "Yeah I've been saying this for a while".

 

[marc71178]

Solanki England captain? What did I miss?

It's bad enough he's even in the squad...

 

[marc71178]

This is like the 3-0 predictions, isn't it?

I genuinely believed the 3-0 to be honest - couldn't see England getting a draw from anywhere.

However I'm even more confident that 5-2 or 6-1 will happen.