***Official*** England in India

[flibbertyjibber]

Originally Posted by Stapel

Is it a totally ****ed up idea to think Swann & Panesar are a better spinner pair than Ojha & Ashwin?

They probably are, trouble is there is only really one test pitch at home to play them on so we will never really see them together again after the next few weeks. Might well play at Old Trafford in the ashes but after that it is difficult to see many chances for two spinners in an England side.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by Stapel

Like most of us, I don't give a rat's arse about official ranking lists.

Monty is nowhere near this top ten, and rightly so. Yet, would he have been an Indian (let's not get started about a discussion he actually is), or a Pakistani or a Sri Lankan, he very well might be.

Is it a totally ****ed up idea to think Swann & Panesar are a better spinner pair than Ojha & Ashwin?

they obviously appear to be much better.

ashwin relies too much on his variations and in the process bowls too many pressure release balls, while ohja has always come across to me as just a better version of the pie-chucker with limited skills (his deliveries look so innocuous )

[Stapel]

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

They probably are, trouble is there is only really one test pitch at home to play them on so we will never really see them together again after the next few weeks. Might well play at Old Trafford in the ashes but after that it is difficult to see many chances for two spinners in an England side.

Indeed!
Since England have Anderson, Finn, Broad, Bresnan, Onions, Tremlett & a few uncapped talented quicks, there is no need to prepare a turner either.

To keep this thread on topic a bit more.
Considering (at least for the sake of arguement) England have better spinners than India have, are India correct in producing turners? England's problems against spin have, imho, both been exaggerated and over discussed. Are India's problems against spin even worse? As a neutral viewer, I think England are actually favourites to win this series.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Stapel

Monty is nowhere near this top ten, and rightly so. Yet, would he have been an Indian (let's not get started about a discussion he actually is), or a Pakistani or a Sri Lankan, he very well might be.
?

Such bull****.

Ajmal is easily the best spinner in the world right now and yet he didn't get nominated for the ICC awards.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by Stapel

Indeed!
Since England have Anderson, Finn, Broad, Bresnan, Onions, Tremlett & a few uncapped talented quicks, there is no need to prepare a turner either.

To keep this thread on topic a bit more.
Considering (at least for the sake of arguement) England have better spinners than India have, are India correct in producing turners? England's problems against spin have, imho, both been exaggerated and over discussed. Are India's problems against spin even worse? As a neutral viewer, I think England are actually favourites to win this series.

the mumbia pitch had a lot of pace in it which made monty appear a lot better than any other spinner. On a relatively slower wicket, which we will probably see in the next 2 games, indian batsmen will have more time to adjust to his quick pace and therefore make him less of a factor.

i think the series all depends on if the indian bowlers learn from their awful performance on a spinning wicket in mumbia. thankfully there will no aleem dar.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Such bull****.

Ajmal is easily the best spinner in the world right now and yet he didn't get nominated for the ICC awards.

His point is that if Monty played for one of the subcontinent sides he'd play more Tests and therefore be in a position to be ranked as high as the likes of Ohja. The ICC awards have nothing to do with it.

[GingerFurball]

Not really surprising that Bungalow missed the point though.

[silentstriker]

India v England, 3rd Test, Kolkata : Call for rank turners 'immoral' - Eden Gardens curator | Cricket News | India v England | ESPN Cricinfo


Considering the policy of screwing over paying customers, I'd agree with him. With that said, I don't think it's immoral for Dhoni to ask for a pitch that lessens the effect of the toss. Clearly the last match was fun - we got to see some great batting, great bowling, some ****ty batting and some ****ty bowling - and we got a result. Not much more you can ask for. Having a match that last five days but where for three days the batsman can just plop their front foot and stroke away are boring as crap and don't add much to the sport. In the subcontinent, the toss matters too much. I like the fact that Dhoni didn't back away from asking for more of the same pitches (though if he had, he would have looked like even more of an ass).

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Such bull****.

Ajmal is easily the best spinner in the world right now and yet he didn't get nominated for the ICC awards.

[Stapel]

Originally Posted by GIMH

His point is that if Monty played for one of the subcontinent sides he'd play more Tests and therefore be in a position to be ranked as high as the likes of Ohja. The ICC awards have nothing to do with it.

Thanks for clearing my thoughts! Indeed what my point is!

Not bad for a person who ranks an overrated wicketkeeper .

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by Stapel

Like most of us, I don't give a rat's arse about official ranking lists.

Monty is nowhere near this top ten, and rightly so. Yet, would he have been an Indian (let's not get started about a discussion he actually is), or a Pakistani or a Sri Lankan, he very well might be.

You're sort of missing the point of ICC rankings. Yes they suck, but if you are going to be using a statistical method of ranking players then only performances count, no spreadsheet will give a **** about your hypothetical performances elsewhere.

Reckon PEWS's rankings probably have Monty higher but his is based on an entire career as well as current form whereas as far as I understand it the ICC's is much more short termed.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Daemon

You're sort of missing the point of ICC rankings. Yes they suck, but if you are going to be using a statistical method of ranking players then only performances count, no spreadsheet will give a **** about your hypothetical performances elsewhere.

Reckon PEWS's rankings probably have Monty higher but his is based on an entire career as well as current form whereas as far as I understand it the ICC's is much more short termed.

Yeah the standardised averages thread I have him is basically only of real use for retired players; it's not meant to tell you who's better now.

The CPL database is designed to be a here and now thing - basically like the ICC rankings except it takes all domestic FC cricket into account as well and is less retarded in the way it weights things. Haven't updated that in a while but I'm pretty sure Panesar would be ahead of Ojha on that, too.

[Daemon]

Well there's a reason they call it 'Test' rankings after all

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by GIMH

His point is that if Monty played for one of the subcontinent sides he'd play more Tests and therefore be in a position to be ranked as high as the likes of Ohja. The ICC awards have nothing to do with it.

I thought he was mentioning a political angle of SC vs the ROW.

[Stapel]

Originally Posted by Daemon

You're sort of missing the point of ICC rankings. Yes they suck, but if you are going to be using a statistical method of ranking players then only performances count, no spreadsheet will give a **** about your hypothetical performances elsewhere.

Reckon PEWS's rankings probably have Monty higher but his is based on an entire career as well as current form whereas as far as I understand it the ICC's is much more short termed.

It's quite a thing you missed my point, even after is has been explained by GIMH....