***Official*** England in India

[superkingdave]

I'd have though you'd have been preoccupied watching Chelsea - Barca pratyush...

 

[tooextracool]

If it is the first and only series some one plays it can be a major factor in determining his stats if he gets affected though.

yes it will, but i dont think that was the case with flintoff. he was simply inept against spin at the time, and while he has shown some sort of improvement recently, his ability against quality spin bowling is highly questionable.

 

[Pratters]

I'd have though you'd have been preoccupied watching Chelsea - Barca pratyush...

I dont have the channel in this stupid hotel. Hence the time pass here with TEC and debating with Halsey over Chelsea and Barca

 

[Pratters]

yes it will, but i dont think that was the case with flintoff.

And I am not debating regarding a specific player.

 

[tooextracool]

No because Freddie Flintoff has played on 56 tests so far in his career, Had he played 130 tests I would have compared him with Kapil on the basis of 130 tests..

that argument makes no sense. you pick the period in kapil devs career where he was probably at his most effective, and then pick the whole of flintoffs career even though you know that he was not even half the player he is now. completely irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that Freddie Flintoff will never last 130 test, Kapil beats him hands down on longetivity.

and by that count, walsh is the greatest fast bowler ever.

 

[tooextracool]

But then one could argue you do it to bring in that you are honest and don't lie without effecting the point you are making too much.

well you do have a point, but as of right now all i can do is tell you what i know, its upto you whether you believe it or not.

I have seen enough of Tendulkar to know he can play in seam conditions. And when people bring in instances you discount them crossing them out. As I said, you don't question whether Einstein can do additions.

well lets just agree to disagree, as ive been through this argument many many times, and i think i have provided enough evidence in the past as to why i think so. In the 2 years that ive been on here, whenever i mention the topic it generates heated discussion on the boards.

 

[viktor]

The difference is playing in India/Pak would only constitute around one tenth of his career, at most. The other two would consitute way more of the relevant players' careers.

This is part of the problem with the arguments about double standards earlier comparing players who've done badly in the odd Test in Asia with those that haven't done anything outside of Asia.

Doesn't make a difference. If he does fail in Ind/Pak, he would have to be a colossus like Warne to get away with that black mark and still be considered a world champ.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Doesn't make a difference. If he does fail in Ind/Pak, he would have to be a colossus like Warne to get away with that black mark and still be considered a world champ.

Of course it makes a difference, you don't write off a player just because they have one bad series in India. Whereas if a player is abject for about a third of their career - ie whenever an Asian player plays outside of Asia, it is a big chunk of their overall record. Apart from the fact that statistically you could argue one/two bad series in Ind/Pak was just an anomaly.

 

[kvemuri]

again you can only look at the conditions when Tendulkar was batting. pointing swing out in the first half hour of the day for example has no relation to the conditions that tendulkar faced.

His 116 in Headingly (think this was his maiden 100 and a match saving one too), was on a seamer friendly pitch and the conditions were prodigious to swing bowling. His 100+ at WACA on a bouncy pitch when India had lost quick wkts was not a batsmen friendly track either. His 111 at Johnnesburg was not on a flat track either, his 169 at cape town didn't come on a flat track either (against Donald, Pollock, McMillan and Klusener). His 155 at Bloemfontein also wasn't on a flat track. I see more than 2 instances of Sachin performing on not so flat tracks per se.

His 117 here was on a green top, a game in which India dropped Kumble and replaced him with Ashish Nehra.

Another Headingley instance where SRT struck 193 on seamer friendly track, in this instance he got his 100 the second day, where he had to deal with the morning conditions conducive for swing bowling

With all due respect, by your inference if the ratio of success, for a player, is measured only and only on the basis of how consistently they have scored on a seaming track, that will probably take if not all at least many players of this era and the previous era out of contention of being great players.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Its amazing as to how all three English spinners are down with stomach bug, all three at the same time!!

Certainly Indian batting will be poorer in the absence of English spin.

 

[alternative]

Its amazing as to how all three Indian spinners are down with stomach bug, all three at the same time!!

Certainly Indian batting will be poorer in the absence of English spin.

don't u mean to say english spinners.. from what i read earlier..
Refer to this

unless u hav some other information...

 

[IndianByHeart]

don't u mean to say english spinners.. from what i read earlier..
Refer to this

unless u hav some other information...

Oh i'm sorry....LOL, i meant English spinners

 

[tooextracool]

His 116 in Headingly (think this was his maiden 100 and a match saving one too), was on a seamer friendly pitch and the conditions were prodigious to swing bowling..

tendulkar has only played once at headingly, and that was in 2002. his maiden test century was at Old trafford, where nearly 1000 runs where scored in the first 2 innings itself.

His 100+ at WACA on a bouncy pitch when India had lost quick wkts was not a batsmen friendly track either..

bouncy wickets have no correlation with seam and swing, and in general bouncy wickets are quite easy to negotiate once you get used to them.

His 111 at Johnnesburg was not on a flat track either,

it was actually a slowish wicket without any seam or swing prominent, which is why it ended up being a draw.

his 169 at cape town didn't come on a flat track either (against Donald, Pollock, McMillan and Klusener). His 155 at Bloemfontein also wasn't on a flat track. I see more than 2 instances of Sachin performing on not so flat tracks per se.

i dont know how the cape town wicket was seamer friendly. as bad as the indian bowlers are you would think that they would at least be capable of dismissing the SA side once in 2 attempts on a seamer friendly wicket.

His 117 here was on a green top, a game in which India dropped Kumble and replaced him with Ashish Nehra.

that innings was quite a joke. tendulkar should have been given out not once but twice. once sanford had him caught behind and then dillon had him absolutely plumb lbw only for asoka de silva(not surprisingly) to give him not out on both occasions.

Another Headingley instance where SRT struck 193 on seamer friendly track, in this instance he got his 100 the second day, where he had to deal with the morning conditions conducive for swing bowling

oh come on, there was swing for about a session, that was it, by the time tendulkar came in it was as flat as a pancake and most people will tell you that it was one of the flattest headingly tracks in a very long time. in fact it even started to take turn towards the end of the game as you can see from the wickets kumble and harbhajan took.

With all due respect, by your inference if the ratio of success, for a player, is measured only and only on the basis of how consistently they have scored on a seaming track, that will probably take if not all at least many players of this era and the previous era out of contention of being great players.

tendulkar has had plenty of chances to play on seamer friendly wickets over his career, especially since it spanned the 90s when we saw a fair few of them. however he was also capable of cashing in on the flat tracks and bringing his average up

 

[aussie]

Chris read in his short stint in ODI cricket showed that he was not only capable of playing the sensible innings of hitting the ball into gaps, but was also capable of hammering the ball all over the park if necessary. jones has shown that he can do neither.



no the argument is that chris read should be in the ODI side ahead of Jones and prior.



no one saw potential with the ball in pakistan except you. most saw him getting slaughtered in all games bar one.



which bears testiment to the quality of our national selectors.

1. Really?, clearly you haven't been watching Jone's that well...

2. Be realistic you know that not going to happen

3. Really, lol you want to put it to a test case?

4. Then how has england been so successful over the past 2 years if the quality of the selectors is now questionable?

 

[aussie]

Sky not covering this winters tour in the UK..

So If English fans want to watch their own team, they are basically stuffed unless they have a load of money? Sounds familiar..

so what they are not showing the ashes either?

 

[honestbharani]

i dont think there is much evidence of tendulkar being capable of playing high quality swing bowling, and almost everytime hes been confronted with it hes failed miserably.

There is no proof that any other batsman has done any better against high quality swing bowling in tough conditions... BTW, the very definition of the word "high quality" and "tough conditions" means that very very few have succeeded in those conditions. Did you even watch his 150 odd at Bloemfontein in 2001/2002? What about that 169 at Cape Town? Maybe Mumbai, where the ball was reverse swinging like crazy and he SMASHED 55 off McGrath, Gillespie (at his best) and Kasper? His first ever test 50 wasn't on a feather bed either... What about his first test 100 against England at Old Trafford where he helped India avoid the follow on as a mere 17 year old? I guess his 100 at Perth was a fluke too... And what about his solo 100s in NZ and England in the mid 90s? You do know more than every other international player who has played the game, though. So I guess we should discard their almost universal opinion and take yours.

 

[honestbharani]

Actually it is like that, especially if you saw how he bowled in the Ashes.

Actually, Harbhajan is the GREATEST spinner ever and if he gets his action right and gets the ball to spin both ways AND bounce, NO England batsman can score a run. And it doesn't matter what they do because Bhajji will still get them out. For proof, watch his 2001 series against Australia.

 

[honestbharani]

thats doubtful, wasim was definetly at least well short of his best pace and while he was still performing somewhat better than waqar towards the end of his career, he was still far more inconsistent to be considered to be in his prime.

Under sub continental conditions, I don't think I have ever seen Wasim bowl better than he did in the 99-2001 period. He was doing all sorts of things with the ball. The only reason I think he didn't do better was because of *cough*matchfixing*cough*...

 

[honestbharani]

how many greats do you know off who failed in the subcontinent?

Dennis Lillee

 

[honestbharani]

care to elaborate on your detailed research?

very simple... EVery innings that Sachin has failed = swinging conditions and quality bowling, every innings he has succeeded = road.