My personal opinion. It wont matter to England if India bat or bowl first.
If India bat first they had better make 350+ or England will match that or even better it in there first innings..Leaving the 3rd innings the most important innings of the game..If India dont get more then 300 in that England will knock the runs of easily in the 4th.If England bat first that'll mean India will bat last under pressure..
England have the bowlers in Tremlett and Anderson to take wickets in spurts.i cant see India doing that..
And aswell England bowling will be tight.It will take India longer to score then England .Taking time out of the game..
My result for the series will be 2-0 to England

sportfan:

"And aswell England bowling will be tight.It will take India longer to score then England .Taking time out of the game.."
You must be kidding me!
You mean to say that Sehwag, Gambhir, Tendulkar and Laxman would score slower than the funereal pace of Strauss, Cook, Trott and Bell?

The only guy capable to scoring fast in England is KP and even his career SR is just 62, just ahead of Tendulkar's scoring rate which is 56.
__________________________________________
From your comment, all I can is one massive fairytale dream, like the ones little girls will have sitting in their "Princess Bedrooms" bedecked with pink walls, unicorns and such.

In that dream, English bowlers will do everything - always put pressure, super economical, take wickets in spurts, never let down.

Also, English batsmen will outscore living legends of the game who are in top form, and that too outscore at a faster pace.

That 350 runs is the par score and that anything less would mean certain defeat for the opposition.

Well, for your information, India has more 350+ scores than any other nation in world cricket right now.

Considering scores over the past 4 yrs,
their average - you head it- average total is 375 or close to 400- I did the math for an article in the old 606, don't feel like doing it again. You go find out for yourself.

As for England- they are still vulnerable enough to be bowled out for scores of 180 and 120 like in Perth in 2010.

What's this talk about English bowlers being economical and always deadly?
Just in this series against Sri Lanka, the English bowled out SL for only two scores of less than 200, and one of them was a lucky evening.

All other scores were 400+. And what's more, Sri Lanka's pace of scoring was quite comfortable- sometimes even better than Sri Lanka.

You don't see India doing many things, because you're having a pipedream, but one thing you and the world can clearly see is India's results in the past 4 years.

But you don't have to see all that if it blocks your perfect vision. You can see it after the series is over and it becomes recorded. Then you can have a new dream, when the present one is shattered at the end of the series.

Personally, without going through all of Rex's arguments, I'd say that England have an advantage in the bowling stakes while India have an advantage in the batting.
Will, hopefully, make for a good, close series, with whoever has the greater advantage coming out on top.

Hoggy:
Thanks for the comment, but I'd prefer if you had read some of the arguments.

I do believe England's bowling attack looks the more oiled unit wherein each bowler has a clear role/plan, but that is the only thing that differentiates theirs from India's, because talent-wise and pedigree-wise, India's bowlers have achieved as much as England's, if not better.

The following comes from cricinfo as a summary of India's last series in England:

"07 (England)
India secured their first series win in England since 1986, thanks to a compelling victory in the second Test at Trent Bridge, and a large slice of luck in the first at Lord's, where bad weather swept in on the final day to thwart England's victory surge. The third Test was drawn on a featherbed at The Oval, in a match notable for Anil Kumble's maiden Test hundred, 17 years and 118 Tests after his debut at Old Trafford in 1990."

Since that time England have significantly improved. Is India stronger now than in that series when their 1-0 win was in part due to the rain at Lords?
Clearly if both teams play well any series win will be hard fought.

"India's bowlers have achieved as much as England's, if not better"

Have they?
In what ways?
You say South Africa's batsmen were rolled over by India's seamers, but that was only really in one test, same as England did when they last toured in SA.
Then you say that England have been bowling against paper thin batting line-up like Australia's. Yet Australia had more 400+ innings against India in India in two tests recently, than they did in 5 Ashes tests at home against England.
Personally I still reckon, especially in English conditions, that England's bowling attack has an advantage.

hopefor:
You don't think India has improved since then? Well you haven't been following Indian cricket then I should say.

Let me bring you up to scratch:
In 2007:
India's opening pair was Jaffer and Karthik.
Now they're not even part of the Indian team setup (not in ODIs,T20s or Tests).

Tendulkar was coming back from injury and many people were calling for his head- (just look up Endulkar articles from 2007). One of the most famous articles was written by Ian Chappell.

Dravid was woefully out of form in that series and he has been until recently.

Laxman wasn't the excellent batsman that he is now.

India's bowling was comprised of an old Kumble, a young Sreesanth, an inconsistent RP Singh and Zaheer who was just coming back into the side after being dropped.

It was a miracle that India actually won the series- especially after the strong show of force England and KP gave at Lords.

Today in 2011,
India has the best opening pair in the world.
Tendulkar and Laxman have both had a sensational 2010, probably the best years of their entire career.
An out-of-form Ganguly has now been replaced by an in-form Raina.

Zaheer is one of the best bowlers in the world, arguably 2nd only to Dale Steyn, while Harbhajan is one of the best spinners, and in no way lesser than Swann. He was right on the money in South Africa and has been excellent with the bat as well- almost an all-rounder for India.

Sreesanth has become an excellent bowler in Tests- he was quite deadly in SA and India have also found Ishant, while the bowling reserves in Praveen Kumar, Mishra, Ashwin etc are also abundant.

What's more, India has been No.1 for two years now, and come December it will be 3 years.

Since August 2008, India have not lost a single series, home or away, lost only three Tests, two of them against South Africa at its best, and have never failed to win the Test immediately following a loss.

England's new found confidence and English fans' and columnists' arrogance has been due to their historic 3-1 victory in the Ashes, a series where they have been forever poor.
But one must not forget- Australia were as poor as ever.

You talk about India winning 1-0 due to rain at Lords, then what about England escaping a 3-1 loss to SA and getting lucky against SL in Cardiff
Other than that, England haven't done much actually.

I do believe they are strong, but to say that India haven't become stronger is just rhetoric.
You get such an impression because many of the Indian personnel from 2007 are still playing, but they have changed beyond recognition.

Hoggy:
Clearly you don't understand what success is and you also forget that Australia were playing in India against India, while they played in Australia during the Ashes.

India won both the Tests at home, and they also averaged only around 300-350.
They gave 400+ in the first innings and came back to bowl out the opposition for 200 in both the 2nd innings.

Did not England struggle to bowl out this SL throughout the series?
Did not England lose to Aus at Perth?

I would clearly say considering the conditions and the opposition, India have exceptionally well.

England have been bowling on juicy wickets enhanced by rain and overcast skies at home, while at Australia they have had the pleasure of bowling to dead-feet batsmen on bouncy pitches.

India had that chance in SA- and showed what they can do if given good conditions. Do you think England's seamers are any better any India's?
I don't think so, if the conditions are the same.

Rex, you spend so much time complaining that posters do not read your posts but yet you do the same.
I did not say India was not stronger than in 2007, I simply asked a question.
Your oversensitive and too defensive about your beloved India to have any objectivity.

Hoggy, for some reason I bothered to read all of the 729 words of the article, and let me paraphrase;

'England are perceived to be good at the moment, this is false as they've only been playing poor teams. India are perceived to have a challenge on their hands next month, this is also false. India is the best and will win.'

Have to agree with you though Hoggy, I believe it's a straight fight between Indian batting superiority and English bowling superiority. Should be good.

Hope from what I recall it was the rain at Lords and a dodgy decision Panesar never got that cost us the game. If only there was such a thing as the DRS....

Speaking of which, I heard somewhere that its Asoka de Silva and Harper with no DRS in the coming series. Gulp. (As someone said on the radio the other day, why don't they let the English use it, and the Indians not? Ha, keep everyone happy).

"Is India stronger now than in that series when their 1-0 win was in part due to the rain at Lords?"
This was your question.

How else would you expect me to answer that question, with its mocking tone etc.?

First of all, never tell me how I must speak. If you wish to debate, please do with facts.
What makes you think I'm not being objective? The article's title and my praise for England's rise should be more than enough to show that I am objective.

I just don't like the flippant manner in which many of the English fans discuss India though- they have been the best team in the world since 2008- haven't lost a series since August 2008, now World Champions etc. but still some keep cribbing about how they are undeserving of their status as No.1

Well they didn't buy their way to No.1- but that's the way most fans speak of them.
So my responses will be strongly worded. Take it or leave it.

danny:
As for your summary of my article, I will leave you to perceive whatever you wish.
I shall not take any effort to change that.

I have given my opinion. England are very good, but India are clearly the best and they will win but it will be a close series- that also I have said clearly.

England seem stronger than they are since they have played only poor teams so far. They should have lost in SA, but escaped- so they seem invincible.
As for DRS, crib as much as you like, but India got more poor decisions than England in that tour of 2007.

I can provide proof of that if you need it.

Out of interest, where do you think India will be in 3 years Rex?

Where? In what sense?
Why bring that up now?
Is this India-England series being played 3 years from now?

I do have an opinion on that, but I shall answer as soon as you answer the questions posed above.

Oh and while I have your attention would you be against England using DRS and Inida not?

Rex, you talk about debate but you don't debate, you simply claim your opinions are superior to everyone else's opinions.
You a very sad individual and I fear for your sanity if India lose this series.

'Where?' - Sorry, didn't realise I'd have to point this out but I wasn't asking you to state the exact movement of tectonic plates, and as such the location of your country....But rather your national team's location in the world rankings

'In what sense?' - Compared to the other teams playing cricket.

'Why bring that up now?' Because you're next generation of a currently ageing batting line-up are not exactly setting the world alight against the Windies. In fact it seems they are being saved by the superb Mr. Dravid.

'Is this India-England series being played 3 years from now?' - Nope, I believe it starts next month.

"Do you think England's seamers are any better any India's?
I don't think so, if the conditions are the same."

I do, but that's just my opinion.
Just as it's you're opinion that they're not.
Trouble is that we have to plough through 2000 word essays to get to your opinion.

Before I speak of 3 years from now, let me tell you what all has happened in a shorter than 3 years span for many teams.

Jan 2007- Australia complete 5-0 Ashes whitewash of England- only the 2nd in all Ashes history.
Dec 2009- They are no more the No.1 Test nation
4 years from Jan 2007, their trophy cabinet is bare- no Ashes, no Border-Gavaskar, no World Cup etc.

Mid-2007 - India are unceremoniously thrown out of the world cup.
August 2008- India lose 2-1 in SL, they have now lost 5 of their last 10 Tests to top teams now.
Dec 2009- India are No.1
Apr 2011- India are world Champions and still No.1

That's how quickly 3 years can change.

__________________________________
hopefor:
What makes you think I do not debate? Because my words are strong? Why not- I have a strong opinion and will not agree unless you prove otherwise.

Can't you face someone with a strong stance? Why don't you try to make your case instead of constantly telling me how I should speak or worry about my sanity?

To put it short- if you spent enough time working your case in the debate, you shall realize that I am a fair debater, rather than investigate or question my character or attitude or general personality.

____________________________________
As for England using the UDRS, well let them use it for their own reference but not as a tool for making decisions since India will not accept that technology as a truthful tool.

So if England wish to use it, they may, but not as a decision making tool in the actual Test.

The ICC has a veto provision for the UDRS- that is both teams must agree for its use in any series. So if India refuse, England have no choice but to accept.

It's the same if England refused as well. Please respect the ICC rules- the BCCI aren't doing something rogue- its part of the UDRS scheme- the veto.

hoggy:
So what if you have to plow through? You can always choose to not do that.

Its such a pity your concentration span is so little, but its not my problem.

I choose to give facts to justify an opinion, while if you choose to merely give your opinions as sermons, it's not a fault on my side to do it my way.

I know exactly how the system currently works Rex, what I was asking was if you'd be against one side using it (as is their choice) and the other not...which you've stated you are, but in all the fairness of your debate have not given a reason.

You also haven't stated where you think India will be three years, instead just cherry-picked historical hot air.

danny:
"but in all the fairness of your debate have not given a reason."
______________________________________
What other reason do you want? Can you not read?

India will not accept to being judged by an umpire- human or computer- that they cannot trust.

So England can use it as long as UDRS-aided decision won't be allowed to make judgments during the Test. England can use it for their own reference- for improving their skills for series against teams which will agree to its use.

____________________________
As for the 3 years question, you haven't quite given me any reason for bringing that up. I told you clearly- no answer from me until you tell me why should I answer.

"I choose to give facts to justify an opinion"

I have given facts to justify mine as well.
ie. in their last series against SA England's bowler performed as well as India's and in their last series against Australia England's bowlers performed better.

Goodness me...you say I can't read. I was asking for YOUR (once again YOUR) opinion on why it should not be used, not the stance of the BCCI. Are you saying you agree with this reason? and for the record quantify how exactly will they not accept being judged by a human they can't trust? There is as much prediction in hawkeye as there is with a human umpire, and what about the fact that players pretty much the world over want the system introduced.

I did give you a reason for the 3 year question, I believe your reluctance comes from being scared of the answer. You've already stated you have no problem in spouting lines of text to preach your views on others. Actually, in fact don't bother if you wish, I don't want to read any more of your biased nonsense..enough for one day.

Hoggy:
"in their last series against SA England's bowler performed as well as India's and in their last series against Australia England's bowlers performed better."

Really? How so?
India in full strength (with Zaheer Khan) bowled out SA twice in 2 Tests and in all occasions lesser than 375.

A full strength England took 20 wickets against SA only once in 4 Tests, and conceded 400+ in one innings in all the other 3 Tests.

As for Australia, like I said before, conditions were different and so was the opposition, to an extent, so it cannot be directly compared. Besides, India won the two Tests they faced against Aus, so what's there to criticize about that?