Who thrashed India harder?

[silentstriker]

Can't imagine many, if any, Indian fans picking England here. This was a much bigger demolition job psychologically - coming to Australia with the best chance to win a series that India have probably ever had.

 

[silentstriker]

Go on then, how wasn't it.

In England, I had hope even when India were losing that it could be turned around. And there was Dravid to take some pride in. Plus we all thought England would put up a challenge for the #1 spot, and India weren't the favorites going in.

This was much, much worse. Or at least it feels a hell of a lot worse as an Indian fan than the English series ever did.

 

[stephen]

I was going to vote England if we ended up drawing the 4th test, but now that we've won the 4th I'll gladly say Australia. Leading into this series, the big discussion points were how India were in with their best shot of a series win in Australia ever and how the lack of a DRS might cost Australia the series if one or two bad decisions went against us at inopportune times. The other point of discussion was Tendulkar and whether he'd get his hundredth hundred in Melbourne or Sydney.

By the end of the series the commentators were all talking up how much better India would be in the T20 and ODI series'. I think that says it all.

 

[Shri]

Would things be different if Mitchell Johnson had played all 4 tests?

 

[Athlai]

We'd have seen the second coming of Johnson tbh.

 

[Jono]

2nd test was a thrashing from Yuvraj's wicket in the 1st innings onwards

At Trent Bridge there was a point in England's 2nd innings where they were 2-down for -10.

Became one-way traffic after Bell came to the crease.

 

[R_D]

Australia... Full strength team and after the first test... Never looked like competitive with them. This was worse than 99 series.... 3-0 thrashing at the hands of Australian. At least in 99 we knew we had a crap team and Australia had awesome team... So it didn't feel so bad but this current series has been mental...... I guess a lot of Indian players are having nightmares..... I forgot KOhli and Sharma said... We will show them India

 

[Debris]

The sad thing might be that India might take it seriously if they get thrashed in the ODIs because that is what really matters.

 

[Jacknife]

In England, I had hope even when India were losing that it could be turned around. And there was Dravid to take some pride in. Plus we all thought England would put up a challenge for the #1 spot, and India weren't the favorites going in.

This was much, much worse. Or at least it feels a hell of a lot worse as an Indian fan than the English series ever did.

All well and good mate but my quote above was taken from a reply to Turbs, who claimed it wasn't one way traffic 'bar one and a half days at Trent Bridge'.

 

[Jacknife]

Would things be different if Mitchell Johnson had played all 4 tests?

India would have won.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Looking at the numbers, the 2 series are very similar.

In England, India scored 2044 runs for 80 wickets, averaging 25.55 at 3.22 per over whilst losing a wicket every 47.55 balls.

In Australia, India scored 1847 runs for 80 wickets, averaging 23.09 at 3.07 per over whilst losing a wicket every 45.06 balls.

In England, India took 47 wickets whilst conceding 2809 runs, averaging 59.77 at 3.83 per over whilst taking a wicket every 93.55 balls.

In Australia, India took 46 wickets whilst conceding 2372 runs, averaging 51.57 at 3.77 per over whilst taking a wicket every 82.02 balls.

Both utter thrashings that 4-0 doesn't do justice to.

How did you calculate those runs and wickets? Did you individually add all the scores from the cricinfo scorecards or is there a way to find the aggregates?

 

[Sylvester]

Would things be different if Mitchell Johnson had played all 4 tests?

 

[smash84]

Looking at the numbers, the 2 series are very similar.

In England, India scored 2044 runs for 80 wickets, averaging 25.55 at 3.22 per over whilst losing a wicket every 47.55 balls.

In Australia, India scored 1847 runs for 80 wickets, averaging 23.09 at 3.07 per over whilst losing a wicket every 45.06 balls.

In England, India took 47 wickets whilst conceding 2809 runs, averaging 59.77 at 3.83 per over whilst taking a wicket every 93.55 balls.

In Australia, India took 46 wickets whilst conceding 2372 runs, averaging 51.57 at 3.77 per over whilst taking a wicket every 82.02 balls.

Both utter thrashings that 4-0 doesn't do justice to.

wow.....those stats look bad

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Nah nah nah nah, my team thrashed India harder than your team.

 

[marc71178]

How did you calculate those runs and wickets? Did you individually add all the scores from the cricinfo scorecards or is there a way to find the aggregates?

Just from the scorecards - I suppose it does ignore run outs but didn't need that scientific an approach to see the gulf between the sides.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Just from the scorecards - I suppose it does ignore run outs but didn't need that scientific an approach to see the gulf between the sides.

LOL yeah I get that..I was just genuinely curious about whether Cricinfo had an option that allowed you to see those aggregates that's all.

 

[Prince EWS]

LOL yeah I get that..I was just genuinely curious about whether Cricinfo had an option that allowed you to see those aggregates that's all.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...l1=span;team=6;template=results;type=allround

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...l1=span;team=6;template=results;type=allround

 

[smash84]

haha.....PEWS WAG

 

[Xuhaib]

what is Ducan record in Australia 1-13?