Teja.
Global Moderator
Yeah but I agree Anderson/Broad are scary good at home. They have close to ATG stats as a home partnership over the last few years. You only play half your tests at home though and Boult/Southee travel better.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is the criticism of the Indian batting line up justified?
- Thread starter Kirkut
- Start date
Flem274*
123/5
Not really. You could argue longer series make it easier for a bowler to learn and adapt if they initially struggle.
If the most recent series was shorter India would be celebrating a 1-0 victory and English fans would be bemoaning their inability to pitch the ball up even on green decks.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sanga apologists to disagree
But seriously, no one seems to be sure if longer series take too much out of players or give players time to settle in and get used to the conditions
Flem274*
123/5
Yeah longer series are a double edged sword. You could find a way to come back and redeem yourself, like what England have done both home and away to India after going 1-0 down, or you can continue to slide and find new depths like England did in Australia.
Shorter series mean you can sneak a 1-0 series win and run away but it also means you need to turn up switched on and ready to play, often in unfamiliar conditions against opponents who know them well.
Shorter series mean you can sneak a 1-0 series win and run away but it also means you need to turn up switched on and ready to play, often in unfamiliar conditions against opponents who know them well.
Surely when you are talking about quality bowlers they shouldn't really struggle initially, and the England/India series isn't travelling its a home one! If anything this proves my point a bit, Kumar was great Tests 1/2and 3 but faded after that. You are right though I'm sure you can find examples of the other, but surely a shorter series is better for averages?
Flem274*
123/5
So you're saying Broad and Anderson aren't quality bowlers then?
It doesn't prove your point at all. How does someone initially struggling in a 4 test home series prove playing away from home is easier if the tour is shorter? It's a ridiculous example.
Shorter series aren't great for averages if you get a pair in one test. This is getting too statisitcal though. Short series provide a lol sample size for playing with numbers but their challenge gets underrated on CW I think, partly because million test series sound like a great battle of endurance (and they are) and because fans want more cricket.
Having to turn up on the ball for a short all or nothing burst where one passage of play can cost you the entire series is hard, especially away from home. In a 4 or 5 test series you can claw your way back if you can endure and learn. In a two test series you don't get a second chance. I'm not saying short series are tougher - I think they're just as tough but in a different way. It's a different test of you as a cricketer.
Last edited:
The point was about Boult/Southee are better travellers, so a home series against India does nothing to shift that debate.
You might be right on difficultly but not on the numbers point, one good innings can skewer averages because of the sample size and because we are talking about 4 quality bowlers the likelihood is that they will bowl well at least once during a 2/3 match series.
You might be right on difficultly but not on the numbers point, one good innings can skewer averages because of the sample size and because we are talking about 4 quality bowlers the likelihood is that they will bowl well at least once during a 2/3 match series.
Flem274*
123/5
I don't care who the better travelling combo is atm. I think the English pair travel better than Teja gives them credit for tbh, I just think your shorter series are easier for travelling teams argument is wrong. The entire point of the challenge of new conditions is the need to adapt as fast as you can, not turn up and instantly destroy worlds.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Southee and Boult have had similar peaks over the last couple of years e.g. in the 2 test series in SL, home against the Windies etc etc. Their troughs haven't been as bad as Anderson's and Broad's have been - they didn't bowl all that well vs India for example (Boult in particular had a few poor spells) but they weren't awful like Anderson was at Lord's.
Would agree with Teja that Southee's on another level at the moment.
Of course, there's been extended periods where Anderson has been on another level and the best bowler in the world.
My original point was that they're comparable bowling partnerships, just that English conditions and the Duke ball is particularly hazardous to touring teams and exposed the Indians in a way in which they weren't exposed in SA and NZ. As it did that Aussie team only last year. There's something quite alien about those conditions for most teams around the world recently.
Flem274*
123/5
I think you could argue the Duke and English conditions hurt England a bit when it comes to going on tour sometimes. The whinging and crying from the English media about the flat pitches and kookaburra balls down here in 2013 glosses over how unaffected Southee and Boult were. If you're an inexperienced English bowler then playing away from home without the hooping swing of the duke would be a steep learning curve, and even experienced and world class bowlers like Anderson and Broad can take some time to adapt and adjust their lengths to super full.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, yeah of course. But we were more debating about individuals rather than teams.
Flem274*
123/5
I don't think this is as absolute as is made out. It clearly happens, but short series also mean both sides have to be on the ball immediately and in the era of no or one warm up match before the series the touring side, good or bad, has to be quick on the uptake. How many times have we seen a country turn up in new conditions and get dicked in the first test before showing significant improvement in the second by either winning or drawing it? England's last tour of India comes to mind.
I think short series favour the home team and also provide a chance for the lesser side (home or away) to snatch a test and run.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think the advantages a touring side may have from a longer tour (more time to get used to the conditions as it goes on) are neutralised if not eclipsed by the disadvantages (how mentally and physically taxing being away from home for so long is, and how easily things can spiral away from you as a touring side in a long series once you have a bad game). It's no good having more time to get used to the conditions if you're already 2-0 down with several players under pressure, worked out or low on morale. Things just get worse from there even if you start to acclimatise better.
So I pretty much agree with Riggins. The longer the series, the less likely the weaker side is to win, regardless of who's at home. Most of the teams are pretty close together right now though so the weaker side is usually the away side.
So I pretty much agree with Riggins. The longer the series, the less likely the weaker side is to win, regardless of who's at home. Most of the teams are pretty close together right now though so the weaker side is usually the away side.
Last edited:
YorksLanka
International Debutant
True but we would gladly take a three test series if it was ever offered to us.hopefully next time we tour England we will get three tests.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
It should be as Pakistan will play the other 4 in 2016.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Friend of mine posted something about a rugby scoreline looking like a cricket one (67-0). Another commented that it's been 15 overseas Tests since we last achieved that feat.
Took a quick look at the scorecards, the last time we managed to do it was 23 overseas Tests ago, in the first test against South Africa in 2011. Even there, we went from 64-0 to 68-0, so technically it doesn't count either.
Took a quick look at the scorecards, the last time we managed to do it was 23 overseas Tests ago, in the first test against South Africa in 2011. Even there, we went from 64-0 to 68-0, so technically it doesn't count either.