Good on England to stick with Pietersen and Morgan rather than try to experiment with Bopara or someone else.
Pietersen is a champion and although he may be out of form for quite some time, he will raise his game against the top team in world cricket right now. It would have been too hasty to drop him.
Similarly, Morgan is similar to India's Raina (who has assured himself of the No.6 spot) and although both may be untested in the Test arena, they have the talent and drive to succeed. If anything, they are excellent fielders and will keep the batsmen in check.
Sehwag and Gambhir are the most fearsome opening pair in world cricket while Tendulkar and Laxman have been two of the most consistent batsmen. While Laxman's numbers seem quite excellent but not earth shattering, one must remember that he won 3 Tests for India against strong opposition single-handed in 2010 (Mohali, PSC Colombo, Durban).
He has also played vital knocks to win/save Tests for India in 2010-11.
Tendulkar has had an annus mirabilus in 2010-11, becoming ICC cricketer of the year and scoring tremendous centuries in different conditions against top teams.
Cook and Trott likewise have had a tremendous year- in the Ashes and against SL but I would still maintain that India have faced the tougher opposition in the two years since the two teams last met in 2009.
None of Cook's double tons in Aus could equal Tendulkar's 146 at Cape Town and I don't know any of Trott's innings that could be as good as Laxman's 96 at Durban.
Of course, one can only face what's pitched up to them, and although I agree on the enormous numbers Cook and Trott and Bell command, I am still doubtful of the truth behind those numbers.
Dravid was out of form in recent years but he looks to be hitting his stride in WI and he might be hungry for more success when he goes to England- where he has excellent stats.
Dhoni and Harbhajan have grown to be quite reliable with the bat, much like Prior and Swann, although I'd easily say Harbhajan leads Swann simply because of the two centuries the Indian has scored, apart from other crucial innings.
Bowling wise:
This is where everyone seems to underestimate India's bowling resources. India's bowling attack was strong enough to bowl out SA cheaply twice in Durban. And what's more
Zaheer took only 6 wickets out of that 20.
Bhajji took 6
Sreesanth 5
Ishant 2
In Cape Town,
Harbhajan took 7
Sreesanth took 5
Zaheer took 4
Ishant took 3
In those two Tests against a strong SA on juicy pitches, India were on top, winning one and drawing another.
And they weren't overly dependent on Zaheer either.
Sreesanth took a 5-for and Harbhajan got one too. Zaheer didn't get a single 5-for in any of those innings. Shows how much of a team effort those were.
I agree that Zaheer is a vital bowler for India's chances, but to term him the only decent bowler in the Indian side would be mere ignorance, and an insult to the South African batsmen that were rolled over by the Indian seamers.
England have a strong bowling lineup, but one must remember, they have only been bowling to paper thick batting lineups against Pakistan and Australia and an SL side with merely 5 specialist batsmen, two of them untested- Thirimanne is one.
Against seasoned veterans like Tendulkar, Laxman etc., merely bowling the ball on a length and keeping it in the good areas won't get you wickets.
Then things will start to unravel for England's attack.
Boycott's hype about Tremlett is hilarious since this Indian batting lineup has faced the likes of Mcgrath and Lee in full flight, and Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel on unplayable pitches.
These batsmen have spanked the likes of Murali and Warne- I don't see why they would worry too much about Swann.
But having said that, England's bowling is pretty strong- just not better than India as the English media is blowing it up to be.
It's as good as India I would say.
England as a team looks pretty strong and will provide quite a challenge for India. Neither team looks way ahead of the other and it will be a close series.
I would say India would win by a one Test margin (not predicting the exact series result yet).
Good on England! A cracking series ahead
posted on 25/6/11
First of all I have immense respect for Trott. He has been in terrific form in all forms of the game he plays.
But the reason why I put Laxman on a bracket higher than him is simply because Trott hasn't been so consistent against stronger teams like South Africa or India (at the world cup).
He did perform admirably against SA and SL in the World Cup and it shows he's in great touch as well (including the series against SL), but his travails in the SA Test series are well documented.
Beyond one vital 50 that played a hand in saving the 1st Test at Centurion, Trott was nowhere to be seen over the entire series.
So it gives us an impression that he's not quite good enough to play against the best.
But apart from that I have no qualms with Trott. The reason why I keep Laxman above him is merely because the Indian has already achieved so many miraculous wins and is in the form of his life, while Trott seems to have started exceptionally well but he's only in the starting stages.
He may yet achieve as much as or even more than Laxman, but he's only getting there so far, and therefore until he does, Laxman will keep his throne firmly.
________________________________________
As for the blatant misinterpretation that Morkel is a lesser bowler than Anderson or Tremlett, let's look at the figures:
Steyn+Morkel= 41 innings
Steyn
118 wicks 24.4 Ave 43.6 SR
Morkel
89 wicks Ave 28.8 53.4 SR
Anderson+Tremlett=16 innings
Anderson
42 wicks 24.2 Ave 48.9 SR
37 wicks 28.9 Ave 57.9 SR
So those figures look similar, with the English pair a tad inferior, but one must not forget that South Africa have been bowling to all sorts of teams on all sorts of surfaces- juicy ones, flat pitches etc and against strong batting lineups like India as well as poor ones like WI and Pak.
But the English pair have so far only bowled in good conditions in England or Aus and against a poor batting lineup like Aus.
That's not denigrate the English pair- to have numbers as good as Steyn and Morkel in itself an achievement, but it remains to be seen if they can maintain the same against stronger batting units like India and South Africa.
Sri Lanka are a pretty good batting unit, but really, they were a muddled bunch- tired from the IPL and half-injured. Jaya and Sanga had too little Test practice before they started the Test on tough conditions while Dilshan was injured after the 2nd.
It's the same with the Aus batting lineup during the Ashes- they may all be exceptional players, but most of them were fighting for their spots- there was so much uncertainty in the Aussie ranks over many issues.
That boiled over in the Katich incident lately where he proclaimed that everyone in the dressing room was constantly worried as to what was going to happen to them tomorrow.
Under those circumstances, no amount of talent can succeed.
The Aussie media didn't help either- hounding Ponting and the captaincy question.
We all know the Aus team that lost in the Ashes was the weakest in the last 30 yrs and is one of the weaker teams in the world right now and is rightfully placed 5th.
Let's not, in the process of hyping up the English team and its bowling, start debating the fact that the Aus lineup was anything but paper thin.
Someone here has put up that the Aus lineup was "strong"!
What rubbish! What a poor scale of measurement! Whatever will he call the Indian batting lineup then? Invincible?
_________________________________________
Steyn and Morkel are a sensational bowling pair and Anderson and Tremlett have far to go before they even come close.
posted on 26/6/11
Good reading your analysis and take on things Rex.
Agree you have fairly solid justification for those views given India's rapid rise in the ranks over the last few years.
As for the upcoming Test series in England. I can also see the enthusiasm and confidence from England fans with the current form of Tremlett and Anderson's swing bowling experience at home. They also now have a much more solid batting lineup (I was waiting for them to fail last summer here but it never happened!) and they have definitely improved in the bowling department starting from 2008. They seemed to have SL's measure during that last series, especially during the 'Miracle at Cardiff' (what a finish that was - given the time lost to rain) and were unlucky to have the last 2 Tests rain interrupted.
They really have come along in leaps and bounds and we are seeing an England team who are actually believing in themselves - more so than at any time for 20 years at least. That's a very important factor as India has also shown and of course, Australia not too long ago.
India (the real Test lineup) should have a contest going by the above but as you say - you probably have more tried and tested stars all through the lineup. Depending on conditions at various venues and fitness of players - it will be a great series to watch. Could go either way but not by much - 1 test, or maybe even a drawn series.
Looking forward to India coming back here too. We have a lot of work and confidence building to do but I'm not too concerned. Well, as long as the selectors can get the balance better than last year - I'm sure there's oodles of talent there to do the job again, regardless of who's umpiring and whether DRS is used. The preceeding 2 Test series against NZ in November will give us a better indication of where we are in our rebuilding phase.
Nothing on the news here (since WC) which is probably due to players licking wounds/having a break (fair enough I say) but it's middle of the footy season and our cricketers are completely 'off the radar' - not even under it at the moment. Maybe that's what they need for a few months at least.
posted on 26/6/11
Line:
I think its extremely good for Australia to have a tough team like India coming to their shores during such a transition period (this time for real, 2007-09 was fake considering how many old players were still dragging themselves along even though out of form- guys like Haydos for example).
That way, new players can start afresh and will also raise the occasion against the top team.
India had new heroes like Harbhajan and Laxman during the 2001 series when Aus toured.
As for England- I didn't follow much of England's journey from 2003 to the 2005 Ashes, but even during that time, it was more like chance that got all that much talent together.
This time though, the players have all been handpicked for each role which they have learned to almost perfection so England are looking well oiled- dare I say more well-oiled than India.
But the reason why I side with India is because although they don't look so neat from the outside, the players and its captain seem to think otherwise and always run a tight ship with everyone contributing nicely.
So like I have mentioned in another thread, this series is destined to be similar to one played 50 years ago between WI and Aus which contained the first tie in Test history.
The series against SL was not at all a clear indication of England's strength.
How are players supposed to switch themselves on over such a rain-marred series. I wouldn't consider the win at Cardiff a miracle.
It was similar to what New Zealand came close to during the Ahmedabad Test of 2010.
India were 15 for 5 and 65 for 6 at one stage before Harbhajan smashed a century to save the match.
SL didn't have anyone who could do that- that's all.
They just didn't have anyone who could stop the momentum and that's partly due to the fact that England were unrelenting as soon as they sensed a win.
posted on 26/6/11
Errata:
In the previous comment,
"That way, new players can start afresh and will also raise the occasion against the top team."
_________________________________
The above should be replaced by:
"That way, new players can start afresh and will also raise their game against the top team."
posted on 26/6/11
can we please stop calling australia's batsmen poor. they most certainly are not!
posted on 26/6/11
I use 'miracle' in the sense that the weather was closing in, barely a session left and they went through them like a hot knife through butter. I'm sure most observers of that Test were resigned to it finishing in a draw when SL came into bat. It was a fantastic finish - you agree?
posted on 26/6/11
Line:
It was a fantastic finish from a spectator point of view. But much like the Adelaide Test of 2003 and 2006 or the Sydney Test of 2008, these were all entirely avoidable defeats for the losing team.
It needed something special from England, no doubt, but like I said before, England or any other team do not become a great team because of that.
But it was an amazing finish- I started watching only after 3 wickets had fallen and stayed riveted until the finish, wishing SL would get a draw - simply because they didn't deserve to lose like that.
__________________________________________
Jezzer:
Aus batsmen certainly have been poor in Tests for quite some time now.
You can start checking the facts from 2009 itself.
From the start of the decade, Australia had been bowled out for less than 200 in a home Test only twice.
Against India at Adelaide in 2003, they scored 196.
Against ICC World XI at Sydney in 2005, they scored 199.
But in 2009, they were bowled out for 150 by WI and for 127 by Pakistan.
Just a simple statistic shows you how low batting standards had fallen.
In 2011, England bowled them out for 98.
If you look up Australia's scores of 250 or less all over the world since 2008 (say), you'll find many of their scores in that region.
That's a hallmark of an inconsistent batting unit.
posted on 27/6/11
hopeforthebest (U3251) :
You don't expect a number three batsman to be regularly saving a team from defeat.
When those situations arise it's the middle order batsmen that do the job. Perhaps that's why Laxman has so often been called upon.
The example of Trott at Lords was when he was batting at five.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a no. 3 batsman doesn't get the chance to be the crisis man, hopeforthebest but there have been many occasions when the no. 3 bat saved a team from a particular defeat or helped him in winning. many innings ( such as the innings against india at capetown, without which south africa would have lost the series ) of kallis, the 281 of laxman against australia which was incidentally at no. 3 while following on, some of gavaskar's innings which he did at no. 1( though not at no. 3 but still at the top of the order), two of vengsarkar's innings against england in freakingly swinging conditions , amarnath's heroics at no. 3 against the west indies, dravid's centuries in both innings against new zealand at hamilton in 1999 to stave a draw (when india were hobbling at 105- 6) and also his superb innings at adelaide in 2003 when india were going down the barrel at 85-4 . Also ponting's great innings of 156 against england at edgbaston at the 3rd ashes test of 2005 (miraculously saving austalia from defeat) and lara's two masterful innings at jamaica and barbados ( which single handedly won the 2 tests for west indies) come to mind. I think that though the no. 3 batsman doesn't get to be a crisis man but still there is a term called "carry the bat through ". But I don't blame trott, he hasn't played a great deal of tests to be closely surveyed for playing innings consistently under fire. Of course the innings at lord's deserves a honourable mention.
posted on 27/6/11
Frazer, I think you should spend time looking up Trott's performances before you continue 'damming him with faint praise'.
posted on 28/6/11
hopeforthebest
Where I have damned trott with faint praise ? I just showed yourcontention that a no. 3 regularly saves his team from defeat was wrong by giving examples. And remember I also said that let trott's career pans out because he is only in his starting stages, whereas laxman's in the form of his life ( as trott ) but in addition to that, he has helped india achieve some miraculous results which were not deemed possible. this is only because he has played a large no. of matches and in the middle/ or last stages of his career. So I just said it is unfair to compare trott with laxman at this point of time. And so I said atleast now I will go with laxman. What's wrong with that ? And where does the question of disrespecting trott comes ?