Yes, but it would be wrong to say that there are many similarities between the current England side and the sides that got absolutely pulverised by the Aussies on a regular occurence. Their mentality is just so much different.
Harris is another one I've defended, but the difference between Harris and Swann is much greater than the difference between Anderson and Steyn. Even making that trade alone weakens England's attack enough to make the trade not worth it.
Funny you are analysing Indian batsmen according to their ability to adjust to tough South African conditions and yet completely discount Indian bowlers who rolled over South Africa for 131 and 210.
No one said there are many similarities. But there are reasons why certain countries tend to perform the way they do over a long period of time. I'd back that until proven otherwise.
Think your advantage at home is overstated tbh. We've shown what he can do on flattish wickets against prank seam bowlers. Even if Zaheer does account for the the odd one man show (ala Siddle x2, Johnson, Harris) I don't have too many fears over Sree/Ishant/Umadkat/Ojha
The difference is that he's hardly been a weak link. Kept things tight in the first dig at Adelaide, and took 5 when the deck started taking spin. Bowled 22 overs for 23 runs on the 3rd day and got rid of Michael Clarke despite the deck giving him absolutely nothing.
Completely and utterly DWTA.
Yes.
I've never disputed that England have less holes than other sides.
I'd quite like to hear them actually...
Agreed. No-one's claiming that England have really done that much of note yet; merely that they have the personnel and overall team balance to do so. Gough's an idiot and I think everyone can agree he made a fool out of himself, but I thought I'd turn this thread into something a bit more productive and bring the argument in a bit towards a more reasonable level.
We shall see is all I can say. Trying to imagine a scenario where India lose a series at home to England, but I can't see one.
How did the weak links in India's attack do in Durban? Ishant took 2/78, which is abysmal in the circumstances. Sreesanth took 4/86, which is better. However both men copped an absolute pasting at Centurion, which changes nothing - a team is only as good as its weakest link. In Ishant and Sreesanth, India have two massive weaknesses in their bowling attack.
Which one? India in SA? Well club level fast bowling and batsmen not used to playing balls above knee height would be a start.....
Isn't that what everyone was saying at the start of the Ashes?
Was the only point I really made in my post tbh. I tend to think that's a little bit more important than you do though, evidently.
Let us get this straight - England can beat India every day of the week, but England haven't beaten India for nearly a decade and a half. Something doesn't quite add up, eh ? Yeah, you could argue that series that happened ages ago aren't terribly relevant to the discussion at hand, but the most recent series, namely the ones in 2007 and 2008, do have some relevance.
By that logic, India should be ranked around #8 in the world.
Only Gough has said that. Everyone who's replied to this thread agrees that it was a stupid thing to say.
Well I don't see you as "Substantial favourites". Unhelpful pitches and a **** bowling attack against our batsmen won't see you win too many, no matter how many runs you make.
Why bring ODIs into this? Swann will be dealt with better than India/Lankan batsmen better than the English deal with India/Lankan spinners. Lets face it Swann has not bowled well against either side in tests.