Very balanced article from Dilshan

[vcs]

Agree with Dasa. India have played a ****load of cricket in the last year. Obviously, that's partly because they are doing well in Tests and the BCCI want to make the most of the No. 1 ranking, but they have certainly played a lot of cricket. Off the top of my head since early 2010:

Tri-series in Bangladesh (5 ODIs)
2 Tests in Bangladesh
2 Tests against SA at home
3 ODIs against SA at home
IPL
T20 WC
5 ODIs in a tri-series in Zimbabwe
4 ODIs in the Asia Cup
3 Tests in SL
5 ODIs in a tri-series in SL
2 Tests against Australia
1 ODI at home
3 Tests at home against NZ
5 ODIs at home against NZ
3 Tests in SA
5 ODIs in SA

Yes, we have made full use of our squad and the burdens of Tendulkar and Sehwag have been managed smartly, but if England didn't do the same in their ODIs it's their own fault. Maybe they would have had more options to choose from for the WC if they had given more opportunities to the likes of Rashid, Woakes etc. in bilateral ODI series.

 

[vcs]

Also worth bearing in mind that Tests in India/SL invariably last 5 days, unlike some of the high-intensity and oh-so-competitive Ashes Tests and the Tests England played last summer against Pakistan.

 

[Jono]

We were contenders this time. Between the 2007 WC and this one, the only side we failed to beat in a bilateral series was New Zealand. Between 6-1 reversals to Australia after Ashes series in 2009 and 2011, we beat South Africa (a), Bangladesh (a) & (h), Australia (h) and Pakistan (h) in 5 consecutive ODI series.

We're quite clearly capable of beating anyone on our day. However, of the above 5 consecutive series wins, the only series we won by more than a game was the away series in Bangladesh. So equally, we're also capable of losing to anyone on our day. The T20 win started in ignomious circumstances as well - losing to the West Indies and struggling against Ireland before rain kicked in. Then something clicked, and in the final 5 games of the tournament England comprehensively thrashed every side we came up against. This time round, things didn't click for us, and as much as I hate to use tiredness as an excuse, when the squad spent 3 months in Australia on the most intense tour in modern cricket, then spent 3 days at home before immediately flying out to the subcontinent, it doesn't help physically or mentally. Then you look at the massive injury problems we suffered - Pietersen, Shazad and Broad would all have started the quarter final if fit I reckon. Particularly in the case of Pietersen and Broad - take the best quick and most destructive batsman out of any team's line up in this World Cup and they'll struggle.

Sure, England ****ed up against Bangladesh and Ireland, but we were also unfortunate that the one defeat we suffered at the hands of a top 8 side came in a knockout match. Given how inconsistent we've been though, on another day we'd have blown Sri Lanka away. We weren't far off being capable of winning the tournament, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for our previous 4 World Cup efforts.

All those ODI triumphs were outside the subcontinent though.

There were always question marks about England on the subcontinent in ODIs.

Edit: Just realised Bangladesh was in Bangladesh.

 

[Dissector]

The idea that Ashes tests are the pinnacle of intensity in cricket is pretty bizzare. Perhaps England players and fans feel that way but that doesn't make it true. India's tests against Australia and South Africa were just as intense as the Ashes tests. And the idea that tour games before the Ashes counts as high intensity cricket is ludicrous.

 

[smash84]

. And the idea that tour games before the Ashes counts as high intensity cricket is ludicrous.

Yeah I never knew that tour games were the pinnacle of high intensity cricket

 

[Furball]

The idea that Ashes tests are the pinnacle of intensity in cricket is pretty bizzare. Perhaps England players and fans feel that way but that doesn't make it true. India's tests against Australia and South Africa were just as intense as the Ashes tests. And the idea that tour games before the Ashes counts as high intensity cricket is ludicrous.

Claiming a 2 Test series is as intense as a 5 Test series is what's bizzare.

The FC warm up games wouldn't have been played to the same intensity, but given how previous Ashes tours have been shaped before the First Test by England getting handed a beating by the Australian states/Australia A, you're at it if you think that England weren't taking those games very seriously.

 

[Jarquis]

Everyone should just accept that India overcome the most in everything they do and they're still miles better than everyone else yadda yadda.
India are great. India are the best.

 

[Dissector]

Claiming a 2 Test series is as intense as a 5 Test series is what's bizzare.

This is a straw man. What I am claiming is that 8 test matches against three opponents and in two countries is probably more tiring than a single series of 5 tests. There are so many variables to "intensity". Close games are probably more intense than easy draws and big wins. How many close games were there in the Ashes? Being in the same country for three months actually gives the players time to acclimatize and playing the same opponent is much less draining than having to constantly to adjust to new opponents and a new country. And a tough 3-2 ODI series is probably more intense than a 6-1 thrashing.

 

[Jacknife]

It isn't the amount of game over a 6 month period, it is the fact, that England have been away from home on tour, bar 3 days, since October. They played their first tour game in November 5th, in total there were 3 first class matches, 5 Tests 8 one dayers and 2 20/20's. All that and they only came home for 3 days before the WC.
Compare this to India, they went to SA for a 7 weeks, then came home on the 24th Jan and prepared for the WC.
There's no doubt England wouldn't have won, even without the silly schedule and they are now changing it. But as a fan, you just want your team, to have the best preparation possible, to give them the best chance. This schedule obviously did them no favors.

 

[Jacknife]

This is a straw man. What I am claiming is that 8 test matches against three opponents and in two countries is probably more tiring than a single series of 5 tests. There are so many variables to "intensity". Close games are probably more intense than easy draws and big wins. How many close games were there in the Ashes? Being in the same country for three months actually gives the players time to acclimatize and playing the same opponent is much less draining than having to constantly to adjust to new opponents and a new country. And a tough 3-2 ODI series is probably more intense than a 6-1 thrashing.

If you think that what England did in the Ashes was easy or lacked intensity,there's no point talking.

 

[Furball]

It isn't the amount of game over a 6 month period, it is the fact, that England have been away from home on tour, bar 3 days, since October. They played their first tour game in November 5th, in total there were 3 first class matches, 5 Tests 8 one dayers and 2 20/20's. All that and they only came home for 3 days before the WC.
Compare this to India, they went to SA for a 7 weeks, then came home on the 24th Jan and prepared for the WC.
There's no doubt England wouldn't have won, even without the silly schedule and they are now changing it. But as a fan, you just want your team, to have the best preparation possible, to give them the best chance. This schedule obviously did them no favors.

We played 4 FC games - vs South Australia, Western Australia and Australia 'A' before the 1st Test and we also played Victoria between the 2nd and 3rd Tests.

 

[Dissector]

I love it when England fans get all defensive about their sacred Ashes.

I am not claiming that the Ashes weren't intense. I am just saying that the five tests that India played against Australia and South Africa were just as intense as the five Ashes tests. Not to mention the fact that India had to play three more tests against NZ which while not particularly intense were certainly tiring. And before that a hard-fought series in Sri Lanka.

The bottom line is India has played at least as much tough cricket as England in the last 6-9 months and probably more.

 

[Jarquis]

Intensity's bull****. There's no way you can prove Game A was more intense than Game B or player A exerted more energy than Player B. It's bull****. Just give up ffs.

 

[Dissector]

Dude it's your side which is claiming the Ashes are more intense than anything else. I am quite happy to just count the number of tests and ODI's which clearly shows that India has played more international cricket than England in the last six months.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, they've also played the majority of their matches at home which offers none of the stress or complications that touring for 5 months straight does.

 

[Jacknife]

Dude it's your side which is claiming the Ashes are more intense than anything else. I am quite happy to just count the number of tests and ODI's which clearly shows that India has played more international cricket than England in the last six months.

Because it fits your agenda.

 

[Jacknife]

I love it when England fans get all defensive about their sacred Ashes.

I am not claiming that the Ashes weren't intense. I am just saying that the five tests that India played against Australia and South Africa were just as intense as the five Ashes tests. Not to mention the fact that India had to play three more tests against NZ which while not particularly intense were certainly tiring. And before that a hard-fought series in Sri Lanka.

The bottom line is India has played at least as much tough cricket as England in the last 6-9 months and probably more.

How many times, England have been on tour for 5 months, without going home bar 3 days, when India do that we can talk.

 

[Jacknife]

We played 4 FC games - vs South Australia, Western Australia and Australia 'A' before the 1st Test and we also played Victoria between the 2nd and 3rd Tests.

Oh yes, forgot about the Victoria game.

 

[Furball]

Dude it's your side which is claiming the Ashes are more intense than anything else. I am quite happy to just count the number of tests and ODI's which clearly shows that India has played more international cricket than England in the last six months.

I'm saying an Ashes tour (the same would also apply to Australia if they had to play a World Cup immediately after an away series in England) is more intense than any other tour in World Cricket.

If you can find me an example of a non-Ashes tour where the touring side has played 4 FC games as well as a 5 Test series, then I'm all ears. But for some reason you just keep on ignoring this point.

 

[Furball]

And it's all very well stating that India have played x amount of cricket, but given that Tendulkar played 4 ODIs between 1st January 2010 and the start of the World Cup, it's not exactly relevant is it?