*Official* England in India

[nikodas]

Tough to watch the English getting dominated like this. Hope they can put on a tough match for the last one of the series at least!

 

[sunilreddy]

I think England got 15 donkeys in their team who can not play cricket outside their country.

 

[Spark]

I think England got 15 donkeys in their team who can not play cricket outside their country.

Funny, I didn't know India represented everything outside of England.

 

[honestbharani]

where's Raghav?

 

[Daemon]

Funny, I didn't know India represented everything outside of England.

Yeah, they were excellent in the one dayers in Australia

 

[Howe_zat]

Ignoring the trolling for a moment, I'm inclined to think that both ODI sides are clearly heavily affected by conditions, but that India are more so than England. Thoughts?

 

[Daemon]

Ignoring the trolling for a moment, I'm inclined to think that both ODI sides are clearly heavily affected by conditions, but that India are more so than England. Thoughts?

If you look at extremes then yes, probably, but most ODI pitches are flat anyways, so imo India won't suffer as much when going overseas as compared to England.

 

[hang on]

Ignoring the trolling for a moment, I'm inclined to think that both ODI sides are clearly heavily affected by conditions, but that India are more so than England. Thoughts?

agree with the first part but would switch around the second bit. though i must say from the outset that i am not particularly up on odi facts and figures.

for example, one figure being bandied about in the meeja is the 1 win in 17 or so for england in india over the last few series. think that india have been far more competitive in england over that time frame, including the matches that they have lost.

 

[Cevno]

Ignoring the trolling for a moment, I'm inclined to think that both ODI sides are clearly heavily affected by conditions, but that India are more so than England. Thoughts?

If you look at extremes then yes, probably, but most ODI pitches are flat anyways, so imo India won't suffer as much when going overseas as compared to England.

Disagree tbh.

In ODI's India are clearly less affected by the conditions than England for me.

We haven't had a real big turner so far this series(Perhaps Hyderabad turned later, but was a day/nighter), but India beating anyone on a seaming/swinging green wicket is far more likely than England beating India on a slow 160 to 190 par turner in extreme terms too.(Though Extreme situation hardly apply consistently.)

Also looking at the general pattern, India have put up a pretty good fight every where( even when they have lost) in ODI's recently even when they have lost, unlike England in this series or even the last time they toured.

 

[Howe_zat]

agree with the first part but would switch around the second bit. though i must say from the outset that i am not particularly up on odi facts and figures.

for example, one figure being bandied about in the meeja is the 1 win in 17 or so for england in india over the last few series. think that india have been far more competitive in england over that time frame, including the matches that they have lost.

Disagree tbh.

In ODI's India are clearly less affected by the conditions than England for me.

We haven't had a real big turner so far this series(Perhaps Hyderabad turned later, but was a day/nighter), but India beating anyone on a seaming/swinging green wicket is far more likely than England beating India on a slow 160/170 par turner in extreme terms too.(Though Extreme situation hardly applies consistently.)

Also looking at the general pattern, India have put up a pretty good fight every where( even when they have lost) in ODI's recently even when they have lost, unlike England in this series or even the last time they toured.

I agree that India are generally a better one-day side than England, taken across a variety of conditions. But I think India have shown a level of fragility outside of their conditions and strength in their own conditions than England have.

I don't think England could beat India on your hypothetical turner, Cevno, but more due to India's strength in that than England's weakness. Take the World Cup match where England defended 170 against SA on a Chennai bunsen, for example.

 

[Kohli_fan]

I agree that India are generally a better one-day side than England, taken across a variety of conditions. But I think India have shown a level of fragility outside of their conditions and strength in their own conditions than England have.

I don't think England could beat India on your hypothetical turner, Cevno, but more due to India's strength in that than England's weakness. Take the World Cup match where England defended 170 against SA on a Chennai bunsen, for example.

England are a decent ODI team at home! But I don't know if you can read anything into our last ODI series with England to say that we have shown fragility!

Many of them games were pretty tight far tighter than this current series and had DL results that could have gone either way! Plus we were playing with a very inexperienced team just was we are in this series, but inexperience when you are playing abroad becomes more of a problem

 

[Spark]

Disagree tbh.

In ODI's India are clearly less affected by the conditions than England for me.

We haven't had a real big turner so far this series(Perhaps Hyderabad turned later, but was a day/nighter), but India beating anyone on a seaming/swinging green wicket is far more likely than England beating India on a slow 160 to 190 par turner in extreme terms too.(Though Extreme situation hardly apply consistently.)

Also looking at the general pattern, India have put up a pretty good fight every where( even when they have lost) in ODI's recently even when they have lost, unlike England in this series or even the last time they toured.

I could see England 160-190 on a really dry deck if they have Swann/Broad/Anderson (for reverse) in full flow, tbh.

 

[Scaly piscine]

agree with the first part but would switch around the second bit. though i must say from the outset that i am not particularly up on odi facts and figures.

for example, one figure being bandied about in the meeja is the 1 win in 17 or so for england in india over the last few series. think that india have been far more competitive in england over that time frame, including the matches that they have lost.

Not if you only look at proper forms of cricket. ODIs are meaningless outside of the World Cup and to a far lesser extent the Champions Trophy. The conditions in the next World Cup are going to be a lot different to these in India. Whoever wins will need to beat the likes of South Africa, Pakistan and Australia. I could see England managing it but not India. Building up to that and proper cricket is what matters.

 

[Manee]

Ignoring the trolling for a moment, I'm inclined to think that both ODI sides are clearly heavily affected by conditions, but that India are more so than England. Thoughts?

Difficult to say. Ashwin and Jadeja are quite good but England have really floundered against them in the Indian conditions.

 

[hang on]

Not if you only look at proper forms of cricket. ODIs are meaningless outside of the World Cup and to a far lesser extent the Champions Trophy. The conditions in the next World Cup are going to be a lot different to these in India. Whoever wins will need to beat the likes of South Africa, Pakistan and Australia. I could see England managing it but not India. Building up to that and proper cricket is what matters.

Ignoring the trolling for a moment, I'm inclined to think that both ODI sides are clearly heavily affected by conditions, but that India are more so than England. Thoughts?

see immediately above. that was the question or point that i was addressing. refers to odis with nary a mention of proper cricket!

also, i distinctly remember india reaching the finals of the world cup in saffer in conditions that were not exactly indian. and they did win the last series they played in australia. yes, india are not the greatest of tourists but i think that people do them a great disservice by dismissing their abilities and chances.

 

[Cevno]

I agree that India are generally a better one-day side than England, taken across a variety of conditions. But I think India have shown a level of fragility outside of their conditions and strength in their own conditions than England have.

I am not sure what conditions you are talking about here tbh.

Gave South Africa a real tight contest with the likes of Vijay, Patel etc.. in the team. Beat Australia in Australia last time(though it has been 2+ years) and as for the series in England not sure how much you can read into it with the way it went in the end(with rain, toss, D/L etc..), though all matches were close.

As for the rest India have won pretty much everywhere else.NZ, WI, Srilanka etc...

I don't think England could beat India on your hypothetical turner, Cevno, but more due to India's strength in that than England's weakness. Take the World Cup match where England defended 170 against SA on a Chennai bunsen, for example.

I think England can beat India on that type of turner tbh(I.e not impossible), but i would say the chances of the beating India on that type of surface are clearly lesser than India beating a SA on a low scoring swinging wicket in SA as was done here -

2nd ODI: South Africa v India at Johannesburg, Jan 15, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

And then in the next match again.

You may have a point in terms of variance of performance in terms of home and away(though England have been strong at home too in recent times) but again that would be down to the awesome strength shown at home, than a big weakness shown away.

I.e if say a World cup league was to start tomorrow(with all teams at full strength), India has a better chance of winning the World cup in England, than England has in India.

 

[ankitj]

ODIs are meaningless outside of the World Cup and to a far lesser extent the Champions Trophy.

The whole of sub-continent vehemently disagrees. If the ODIs were meaningless we wouldn't have Tendulkar, Akram, Jayasuriya etc playing hundreds of ODI matches. ODIs were taken very seriously up by all nations (possibly except England) until a couple of years ago when IPL and CL T20 arrived and cricketers started skipping ODI series and multi-nation ODI tournaments disappeared.

 

[centurymaker]

The whole of sub-continent vehemently disagrees. If the ODIs were meaningless we wouldn't have Tendulkar, Akram, Jayasuriya etc playing hundreds of ODI matches. ODIs were taken very seriously up by all nations (possibly except England) until a couple of years ago when IPL and CL T20 arrived and cricketers started skipping ODI series and multi-nation ODI tournaments disappeared.

This.

 

[ganeshran]

Not if you only look at proper forms of cricket. ODIs are meaningless outside of the World Cup and to a far lesser extent the Champions Trophy. The conditions in the next World Cup are going to be a lot different to these in India. Whoever wins will need to beat the likes of South Africa, Pakistan and Australia. I could see England managing it but not India. Building up to that and proper cricket is what matters.

The only meaningless form of cricket is International T20s. ODIs are significant both in terms of the skills involved and the following for the format.

 

[Prince EWS]

The whole of sub-continent vehemently disagrees. If the ODIs were meaningless we wouldn't have Tendulkar, Akram, Jayasuriya etc playing hundreds of ODI matches. ODIs were taken very seriously up by all nations (possibly except England) until a couple of years ago when IPL and CL T20 arrived and cricketers started skipping ODI series and multi-nation ODI tournaments disappeared.

And if ODIs were meaningful we wouldn't have players rested from them extremely regularly. A series in India between Australia and India recently springs to mind, which was an A tour in all but name.

People are allowed to care about what they like, but Scaly is not being dishonest in his posts; I'm sure he wouldn't be thinking it was a big deal if England had won this series.