***Official England in India***

[GIMH]

I'd be very surprised if it's Ambrose tbh

 

[silentstriker]

Is Tremlett in the reckoning? He looked very good against India.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, interesting one. Is he in the squad, cbf looking?

The problem for him is that he really should have played @ Headingley in July, Vaughan clearly didn't fancy him so Pattinson got the gig instead. It will come down to whether KP rates him or not - they have been county team-mates for a few years and although Pietersen plays county cricket about as much as I do he should still have a good idea of whether he rates the guy or not. We shall see.

 

[SJS]

SJS i'm surprised at your reasoning on these issues of Indian batting and Aus bowling stocks..and i have to say i'm not convinced.

As far as i know,the emergence of talent, be it batting or bowling is entirely a random process.Therefore i don't understand how you could record the previous trends and just on the basis a few periodic repetition conclude that it is a periodic process?

Also one more thing(slightly irrelevent)..i notice that you have made no mention of Suresh Raina anywhere in your list of future aspects..why is that?Is it because you don't rate him?If yes..why?Have you noticed a technical flaw or something..because i think he is a real talent(infact a very major talent like Sharma).

Also lets not forget that most of major talents also weren't that flash when they first came on the scene..with the exception of Azhar and Sachin most of them took a couple(possibly more) of seasons before being rated by people outside India.Case in point being Rahul,Sourav,Laxman.Infact if anything at the age of 21 when you compare Rohit and Raina to to Rahul and Sourav the former pair is more talented..yes i'm aware they may not exactly justify the talent but i'm just trying to say you can't say we don't have the players.

Its imortant to note here that Sachin is an exception..i mean he was introduced at 16.Sure lack of any real talents might have motivated the selectors to do so and also since the enire output of the team wasn't necessarily great in terms of result..people were willing to wait it out for him get adjusted to international level(basically he was being spoonfed)..I think the introduction of 16 year old prodigies,however talented they maybe, simply won't happen in this time and age..yes even in India as unprofessional as the BCCI are!!

I can argue about it but dont feel like.

Just make a note of it on your living room wall, look at it every day and come back in four years

 

[Prince EWS]

Probably, I just find it such an absurd suggestion that I don't think about it.

Seriously, now you mention it I imagine it'll be Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Ambrose\Prior, 4 bowlers. Not what I'd do, but I reckon that's by far the likeliest scenario.

I think you're being kind to Stuart Broad's bowling ability there. I think Flintoff and Broad will be picked as a "package" as such. Flintoff's not good enough for #6 but he's a lot better than a fifth bowling option, and Broad's not good enough to play as a frontline bowler but he's better than your average #8. Balancing act as such. Not that I agree with it at all as I don't think Broad should be anywhere near the Test team, but I think that'll be the logic behind it.

Oh, and I imagine Prior will bat ahead of Flintoff if he plays.

 

[andruid]

I'd be very disappointed if we get two drawn Tests. I hope there'll be enough in the two pitches to make this very difficult.

Think it says a fair bit about CW, BTW, that despite the fact we've 7 ODIs coming-up almost all discussion centres on the 2 Tests further down the line.

In line with the anarchist in me I was very dissapointed that India's last tour of the West Indies did not result in a 0-0 series result.

ODI's are largely too predictable. Loads more to talk about in test cricket.

 

[FBU]

If India bat similarly (admittedly unlikely as at least 1 player will be different) and the pitches are similar, I can't see Harmison not being every bit as ineffective if not more. I don't have massive hopes for Anderson or Sidebottom either TBH.

Flintoff, though, clearly has skills none of the Aussie bowlers do and I'd be disappointed if he doesn't outbowl the lot of them. And Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma to boot too. Likewise, should the Indians treat MSP the same as they did Krejza (admittedly his bowling invites that sort of treatment) he'll almost certainly pick-up a stack if there's anything in the pitches.

.

In India
Anderson 1 Test 6 wickets at 13.16 econ 2.53 s/r 31.10
Flintoff 6 Tests 17 wickets at 30.88 econ 2.66 s/r 69.50
Harmison 2 Tests 5 wickets at 38.60 econ 2.52 s/r 91.60

 

[tooextracool]

The problem for him is that he really should have played @ Headingley in July.

I cannot logically see how Tremlett deserved to be in the side at Headingly. No matter what way you look at it, the choice should have been between Hoggard and Harmison IMO both of whom had been taking wickets by the bucket during the season. I would have leant towards Hoggard because they wanted a horses-for-courses bowler and no one fit the bill better than Hoggard.

 

[tooextracool]

Likewise, should the Indians treat MSP the same as they did Krejza (admittedly his bowling invites that sort of treatment) he'll almost certainly pick-up a stack if there's anything in the pitches

Doubt it IMO. Not because I think Monty's bowling is worse than Krejza but because there is little evidence that Panesar is good enough to deal with players that take the attack to him. Perhaps his stint at the performance academy might help him a bit, but on the basis of what we have seen during his 2 year career he doesnt have the variations to trouble a top drawer player in the subcontinent.

 

[Precambrian]

SA Coach Mickey Arthur's 10-step formula to succeed in India

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article5133625.ece

Excerpts:

6 Handling reverse swing

All India's quicker men bowl decent reverse swing. One method we've used is to stay a bit deeper in the crease and try to hit the ball to mid-on. Hashim Amla was good at that because he plays later than others. Whenever bowlers got it wrong, he would punish them through the leg side.

7 Use your bouncer

Don't be scared to bowl bouncers. It's the seam bowlers' one weapon in India to stop their batters lunging forward all day long and that is why Stephen Harmison is crucial. None of the Indian batsmen pulls, they prefer to cut. You bowl your bouncer to keep the batsman in his crease for your next ball.

Good read nevertheless.

 

[aussie]

There is absolutely no chance of India's generation next providing replacements for SRT, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman - all the rhetoric of Indian fans and their excitement at any 20 year old who scores runs in domestic cricket notwithstanding. There are some good youngsters around but one cant see anyone of the caliber of Sachin, Laxman and Dravid. The only guy who may turn out to be really good seems to be Rohit Sharma but the jury is still out. The rest are okay.

Well yea Tendulkar won't be replaced soon.

So overall you saying other than Sharma, none of Vijay, Raina, Badrinath, the potential of Yuvraj to finally come of age in tests, Kohli, Tiwary, show you any of the same natural talent compared to when the likes of Dravid/Laxman/Ganguly where younger that gives you any real confidence in them becoming middle-order stalwarts for the next decade or so?

 

[SJS]

Well yea Tendulkar won't be replaced soon.

So overall you saying other than Sharma, none of Vijay, Raina, Badrinath, the potential of Yuvraj to finally come of age in tests, Kohli, Tiwary, show you any of the same natural talent compared to when the likes of Dravid/Laxman/Ganguly where younger that gives you any real confidence in them becoming middle-order stalwarts for the next decade or so?

See. Its very easy to misunderstand these things.

Lets look at a hypothetical case. Steven Waugh leaves Australia and Katich, Clarke, Hodge etc are in line to replace. To say that one doesn't see any of them turning out to be of the caliber of Waugh is not to decry them or their merits as international cricketers. It is just to emphasise that waugh was not an ordinary middle order batsman.

When a country is lucky enough to have three/four truly great players playing at the same time, its not uncommon to find that the replacements aren't always another three four truly great players. It did not happen with the Indian spinners, It did not happen with the Australian attack of the recent past and it is not going to happen , in my humble opinion, with India;s middle order.

As Anil rightly puts it, Ganguly's spot may be filled. Thats because Ganguly is not of the same caliber as Sachin and Dravid while Laxman is very close to the top too irrespective to the gap in statistics.

Sure India will find Test class batsmen. All those you mention have the potential to be successful Test batsmen but these three guys they are following are a bit more than just successful Test batsmen.

The second point I was making was that if you have to replace retiring cricketers, you will generally have an idea where the replacements will come from. A surprise replacement, meaning someone completely unknown coming and taking the game by storm is not a daily happening. By and large the pool is well known. So is the case with India. The pool IS of the already tried kaif and Yuvraj, the less tried (mainly in the limited overs game) lot of Sharma, Raina, Kohli and Badrinath. One could add a couple more. Now from whatever one has seen of these youngsters, they all look to be competent cricketers but only Rohit Sharma has shown the complete set of skills (all round game, solidity of defense, width of stroke play, temperament etc) that makes one feel he is a notch higher. The others have not.

This doesn't make them redundant. Its just putting things in perspective.

I remember writing on this forum a couple of years back about the deficiencies of Yuvraj's technique and how that would hamper his career particularly in the longer version of the game. I was almost blasted off the thread. Yuvraj was the flavour of the time. Just as Badrinath is of today and Rohit Sharma was yesterday.

I wish Indian fans would not just get swayed by emotions so much that it makes it difficult to look more objectively at their heroes. I am not saying all are like that but so many are. There is nothing about one's favorite hero, and even at my late age I have mine, that should make one not be able to discuss him objectively warts and all. It enhances their appeal according to me. It humanises them. Why must we find ourselves able to only deify our heroes because the minute we do that anyone who doesn't appears to be indulging in blasphemy

I remember writing here, at the time when Chappell was still the coach - so it is quite some time ago - that Raina looks very promising and is the most promising of the youngsters on the horizon. No one seemed to agree. That guy too disappointed, never extending his good starts to bigger innings. Finally, Chappell was sacked and he got tagged as someone whom Chappell favoured unduly and he went into the clouds. Now he has emerged again, added temperament to his abundant stroke play and most importantly got runs. He is back in contention. But the point is that he is the same player.
His game is essentially the same as is his technique.

One should be able to look beyond the scores and the media hype and just look at a batsman shaping up to quality bowling and you get an idea about him.

I dont form my opinions based on scores or the headlines and that is what finds me at odds so often with Indian fans and , surprise surprise, not so often with those from Australia England and New= Zealand

I have leant to live with that

 

[Lambu]

^ fair enough SJS..i think i understand what you were saying earlier a lot better now..the bit about Raina seems to be exactly what happens with most youngsters who get media hype,early in their careers..One can only hope one day this trend stops.

 

[Precambrian]

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/indveng/content/current/story/378055.html

England squad for 1st ODI:

Ian Bell
Matt Prior (wk)
Alastair Cook
Kevin Pietersen (capt)
Ravi Bopara
Owais Shah
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Samit Patel
Stuart Broad
Steve Harmison
James Anderson.

Good squad there, Sidebottom misses out of injury, Luke Wright due to non-performance. I think Cook will be the 12th man.

 

[Richard]

Can't see him not being.

Disappointing to see Bopara apparently in line to bat way down the order again though... completely pointless. You might as well play Luke Wright. Bopara is no use down the order and playing down there is only going to damage his long-term prospects.

Presumably going to be Bell, Prior, Shah, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Patel, Bopara, Broad, Anderson, Harmison. Both Patel and Bopara are top-order batsmen not lower-order sloggers, and not for the first time in recent years (Yardy, Loudon, Dalrymple) we see a batsman who bowls a bit of fingerspin picked as a fingerspinner to bat in the lower-order.

 

[Richard]

Doubt it IMO. Not because I think Monty's bowling is worse than Krejza but because there is little evidence that Panesar is good enough to deal with players that take the attack to him. Perhaps his stint at the performance academy might help him a bit, but on the basis of what we have seen during his 2 year career he doesnt have the variations to trouble a top drawer player in the subcontinent.

Thing is, MSP has several advantages over Krejza - probably spins the ball a bit more effectively, though not much; more accurate; and doesn't toss it up anywhere near so much. This means that if he's attacked like Krejza was on a turning pitch, I don't see many batsmen lasting long.

If the Indian batsmen play him normally I can perfectly easily see him struggling, even on the presumption that the pitches to take spin, but if they play him headless-chicken style like they just did Krejza, I can see him having success.

It's not like many batsmen have ever managed to successfully go after him hell-for-leather. About the only time that comes to mind is those few overs by Gilchrist at The WACA in 2006/07.

 

[Richard]

I think you're being kind to Stuart Broad's bowling ability there. I think Flintoff and Broad will be picked as a "package" as such. Flintoff's not good enough for #6 but he's a lot better than a fifth bowling option, and Broad's not good enough to play as a frontline bowler but he's better than your average #8. Balancing act as such. Not that I agree with it at all as I don't think Broad should be anywhere near the Test team, but I think that'll be the logic behind it.

Broad may obviously not be good enough to play as a front-line bowler, but the fact remains plenty of people still think he is. The idea behind him being picked is that he can bowl, even if the truth is he can't do so particularly well.

Oh, and I imagine Prior will bat ahead of Flintoff if he plays.

Doubt it, Pietersen's seemingly got his way (and Flintoff's way) about Flintoff batting at six for the time being and I think it'll take a bit of Flintoff failure there for him to move down.

 

[Richard]

I'd be very surprised if it's Ambrose tbh

It'll take Prior doing nothing in the ODIs for me, plus Ambrose doing well in the Test tour-games (which I hope are First-Class rather than waste-of-time 13-a-sides). Both of which I find perfectly conceivable, though obviously not take-for-granted-worthy.

 

[Richard]

Is Tremlett in the reckoning? He looked very good against India.

Pretty sure he's in the squad for the ODIs but not the Tests. And despite the fact that the longer form of the game is clearly easily his strength, his First-Class form last season was extremely poor and it'd have been difficult to justify picking him for the Tests on this tour.

Nor do I see him doing much on the sort of pitch you expect in India, you need a Flintoff-type bowler for that.

 

[Richard]

In India
Anderson 1 Test 6 wickets at 13.16 econ 2.53 s/r 31.10
Flintoff 6 Tests 17 wickets at 30.88 econ 2.66 s/r 69.50
Harmison 2 Tests 5 wickets at 38.60 econ 2.52 s/r 91.60

I realise this - Anderson's game was a single one and India unquestionably played very poorly indeed that match. I don't expect him to be able to make a habit of that. Flintoff on the other hand bowled damn well on both his previous tours, despite the fact that in the first his merits as a bowler elsewhere weren't that considerable.