India - no longer bad tourists

[Sanz]

Whether anyone likes/dislikes Ganguly as person shouldn't affect his/her professional duty. Unfortunately for Cricinfo, it did and I was dissapointed.

 

[JBMAC]

Full Marks to India for capitalising on an understrength England side.They saw a weakness and attacked and in fifty years time the stats will show how dominant they(India) were...BUT it will not tell the whole story...
I cannot see India snowballing the Aussies downunder the same way.

 

[pasag]

I don't really see how it was that much of an understrengthed England side though. Right Flintoff and Hoggard weren't there for the bowling, but Tremlett more than eclipsed anything Harmison would have done, plus the bowling isn't what let England down anyways, it was the full strength batting.

 

[Jono]

Full Marks to India for capitalising on an understrength England side.They saw a weakness and attacked and in fifty years time the stats will show how dominant they(India) were...BUT it will not tell the whole story...
I cannot see India snowballing the Aussies downunder the same way.

What whole story?

You mean the fact that the only Indian player to score a century in the series was Anil Kumble, yet they still won?

England batted poorly. Players like Bell and Prior cracked when they needed to perform, and Cook, Collingwood etc. didn't go on with starts.

The question is, how did England lose with Anil Kumble being fairly innocuous, and Sreesanth not having a brain for two tests? They basically got cleaned up by a 2 man bowling line-up, and throw in Sourav if you want.

 

[biased indian]

What whole story?

You mean the fact that the only Indian player to score a century in the series was Anil Kumble, yet they still won?

England batted poorly. Players like Bell and Prior cracked when they needed to perform, and Cook, Collingwood etc. didn't go on with starts.

The question is, how did England lose with Anil Kumble being fairly innocuous, and Sreesanth not having a brain for two tests? They basically got cleaned up by a 2 man bowling line-up, and throw in Sourav if you want.

exactly

 

[silentstriker]

Full Marks to India for capitalising on an understrength England side.They saw a weakness and attacked and in fifty years time the stats will show how dominant they(India) were...BUT it will not tell the whole story...
I cannot see India snowballing the Aussies downunder the same way.

Regardless of whether someone beats an understrength or full strength England side, beating Aussies in Australia is completely different, so I am not sure what that would prove either way.

 

[Richard]

You mean the fact that the only Indian player to score a century in the series was Anil Kumble, yet they still won?

Good lord, that's something I never, ever thought I'd see, and it's only just occurred to me that it did.

 

[R_D]

Wait, Ramesh Powar?

Or Sharad Pawar?

Who the hell is Powar?

hehehe sorry about the confusion.

 

[R_D]

Yeah. But you know I cant say that. If I said that I would be accused of being a Jgmohan Dalmiya and Sourav Ganguly supporter. The anti Ganguly wave was so strong back then that people put all the blame on Ganguly. The focus was not on the politics Powar played there but on how Ganguly faked an injury to stay out of that mach.

Indian Cricket politics was at worse during that series and that kinda added up to all the drama.

Yeah i remember that and cricinfo has always been anti-ganguly and it seems in recent times it has become anti-tendulkar as well.
I

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah i remember that and cricinfo has always been anti-ganguly and it seems in recent times it has become anti-tendulkar as well.
I

I am not sure abt them being anti-Ganguly or anti-Tendulkar. I just think they like to criticize guys who stir up intense emotions, either way, among the readers. Certainly Sourav at that time and Sachin today qualify under that category..... Both have blind worshippers and mindless critics after them..... And I guess it translates into that many more hits..... You can't expect professional ethics from businessmen who are only concerned abt the bottom line, I guess....

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, one series win has certainly established that they're now consistently winning away.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, one series win has certainly established that they're now consistently winning away.

one series win but a lot of away test match wins in recent years... Obviously, it is OTT to say that they are very good away from home but to say that they are no longer bad tourits is not a stretch at all, IMO... Don't see why you would see it that way.

 

[Son Of Coco]

one series win but a lot of away test match wins in recent years... Obviously, it is OTT to say that they are very good away from home but to say that they are no longer bad tourits is not a stretch at all, IMO... Don't see why you would see it that way.

Personally, I think there's a tendency to jump in a bit early with India...so I'm going to wait until they win another series

 

[Sanz]

I am not sure abt them being anti-Ganguly or anti-Tendulkar. I just think they like to criticize guys who stir up intense emotions, either way, among the readers. Certainly Sourav at that time and Sachin today qualify under that category..... Both have blind worshippers and mindless critics after them..... And I guess it translates into that many more hits..... You can't expect professional ethics from businessmen who are only concerned abt the bottom line, I guess....

The difference though is, In case of Tendulkar they criticised him for his performance, giving whatever stats etc. In case of Ganguly they went beyonnd criticism, such as lying about the Nagpur Pitch, lying about Ganguly's injury etc. Ganguly was an easy target.

They cant do that to Tendulkar, If they did, their existence in India will be in danger.

 

[Raghav]

Many people were anti-Ganguly. He's always been capable of making himself unpopular. Therefore, people will do anything they can of times to make him look bad.

Equally, many people are against the idea of India having any home-advantage in India.

well said

 

[Salamuddin]

Personally, I think there's a tendency to jump in a bit early with India...so I'm going to wait until they win another series

Possibly.....but the point of the whole thread is to discuss the fact that India are not easy beats away from home anymore and I don't think that was reflected simply by their recent win in England.

It's been quite obvious that India have been increasingly competitive away from home since 2001, they've won at least 1 test on every tour they've been on this decade with the exception of RSa 2001 and NZl 2002 (and they weren't that far from winning in NZ)...and that includes series wins in Pakistan, West Indies, and England (the last 3 occurring in the last 3 years).

I'd say that they're probably on par with England away from home and probably a little better than South Africa and Pakistan.

 

[honestbharani]

The difference though is, In case of Tendulkar they criticised him for his performance, giving whatever stats etc. In case of Ganguly they went beyonnd criticism, such as lying about the Nagpur Pitch, lying about Ganguly's injury etc. Ganguly was an easy target.

They cant do that to Tendulkar, If they did, their existence in India will be in danger.

agreed.... That wasn't very professional on their part, the way they went after Ganguly. The funny thing was, he wasn't performing well at all as a batsman at that time, so if they wanted to criticize him, they could have well used that... Instead, they were going after him in a bit of a personal way....

 

[Richard]

I am not sure abt them being anti-Ganguly or anti-Tendulkar. I just think they like to criticize guys who stir up intense emotions, either way, among the readers. Certainly Sourav at that time and Sachin today qualify under that category..... Both have blind worshippers and mindless critics after them..... And I guess it translates into that many more hits..... You can't expect professional ethics from businessmen who are only concerned abt the bottom line, I guess....

TBF they're not all that bad.

Some CI writers strike me as genuine cricket-lovers, interested in the bottom-line but not consumed by it.

 

[aussie]

Well yea, they have looked in recent years more of a stable side away from home, even if they may not have had the total package required to win a series away from home.

But something tells me this could be short-lived, since well in the 90s for example when India would the batting was always strong on paper but many of their batsmen could not translate the form shown @ home or around the sub-continent on bouncy tracks or swinging conditions overseas other than Tendulkar & probably Dravid. As they got older others like Laxman, Ganguly, Sehwag improved. Then the bowling was always a problem especially the pacers.

Now with India potentially assembling a good line of seamers that have the ability to do well in foreign conditions that much vaunted batting line-up is getting older & will be gone soon & i'm not too sure about the next generation of Indian batting. So i don't know very soon it could be a case of India having the bowling to do well overseas but great question marks over the quality of batting to withstand bowling in alien conditions.