Indian Oversea test watch, how will they do?

[Spark]

Yeah, that was a **** show. Point still stands though, it'd be like Australians pointing at our NZ record when defending perfmronaces in India and England.

 

[GotSpin]

White mans burden IMO

 

[Motorwada]

SL is fair enough, but literally everyone has won in WI. It's borderline meaningless.

The primary reason none of Eng, SA and Aus are able to dominate each other because all have consistently put out very good, very difficult-to-beat teams over the last 10-15 years. It's an extremely dishonest point to say that winning in WI = winning in Aus, and what the **** is this race baiting garbage thrown in?

England, SA and Aus winning in each other's countries is an exceptional achievement over the last 20 years because it's really, really difficult. No honest person considers English and Australian conditions "similar". But of course, winning a series against a high quality side containing Anderson and Broad at home is totally meaningless, compared to beating a side over which you have four times as many Test wins as losses. These are completely equally competitive situations that it totally makes sense to equate.

England hasn't won in WI for years.

Also I can refute your Eng, SA and Aus winning in each other's conditions by saying that India are so much better than Pak and SL that there hasn't been a triangle of them beating each other like the one Aus, SA and Eng have. It's just that India are so dominant in subcontinental conditions while the other teams are not good enough to become that dominant team in non-SC conditions breaking the deadlock.

Number of wins and losses over a country over a lifetime means nothing as different teams entered cricket at different times. And winning a series against a high quality side containing Anderson and Broad is similar to winning a series against a side containing Herath who is as good as Anderson/Broad in home conditions.

 

[Motorwada]

The pitches we played on didn't, tbh. Starc was magnificent, but those were spin-friendly. Same for the series in 2011 too, which Motorwada has conveniently forgotten that Australia won.

In the end I don't think people are expecting that India win, just that they don't stink the joint up like in 2012-13.

Moot point. That's 7 years ago with the likes of Ponting, Hussey, Clarke. Ind won in England 2007, drew in SA 2010 etc. Talk is of current teams.

 

[Motorwada]

Yeah, that was a **** show. Point still stands though, it'd be like Australians pointing at our NZ record when defending perfmronaces in India and England.

Which is exactly what my original post was a reply to. The poster had given an argument that they were superior away sides as they could beat each other away which is similar to India beating SL away.

 

[Spark]

"non subcontinental conditions" is about as useful as "colours that aren't green" as a category.

And you aren't talking about current teams, as shown by your inclusion of Pakistan in this "analysis".

 

[Motorwada]

"non subcontinental conditions" is about as useful as "colours that aren't green" as a category.

And you aren't talking about current teams, as shown by your inclusion of Pakistan in this "analysis".

There is your bias again. All of the SC is one color (inspite of ebing 50% of cricket playing nations) and everything else is the full color spectrum. Well I can't fight against this.

And Pakistan has been included in my first post.

 

[Spark]

There is your bias again. All of the SC is one color and everything else is the full color spectrum. Well I can't fight against this.

And Pakistan has been included in my first post.

"Subcontinental conditions" refers to a clearly definable thing: slow pitches with low bounce that spin. Not all subcontinental pitches are like this. but generally speaking most are, in the same way that "Australian conditions" refer to fast, bouncy pitches with little swing and "English conditions" slower pitches with considerable swing and seam.

What exactly are "non subcontinental" conditions? Can you define it at all?

And if we are talking about current teams, should i then consider India's terrible record of zero wins against Pakistan in years? Virat Kohli must truly be terrible away, he hasn't scored even one run against them.

This is nonsensical.

 

[OverratedSanity]

"non subcontinental conditions" is about as useful as "colours that aren't green" as a category.

No that's not an appropriate analogy. There's tons of diversity within different countries in the SC, the pitches are different, the weather makes a big difference, especially in SL. Not to mention, the different variety in cricket balls which creates a huge challenge for spinners from India who grow up bowling with the SG. You'd have expected Kumble and Harbhajan to have done well in SL but they didn't because it took them ages to work out how to bowl well with a non-SG.

 

[Spark]

No that's not an appropriate analogy. There's tons of diversity within different countries in the SC, the pitches are different, the weather makes a big difference, especially in SL. Not to mention, the different variety in cricket balls which creates a huge challenge for spinners from India who grow up bowling with the SG. You'd have expected Kumble and Harbhajan to have done well in SL but they didn't because it took them ages to work out how to bowl well with a non-SG.

I'm not saying that there isn't diversity though, I'm saying that "non subcontinental conditions" can't be given an intelligible meaning. It's simply way too broad. At least if I use subcontinental conditions in a sentence, people know what I mean, and don't assume I mean that every subcontinental pitch is identical, any more than every English pitch or SA pitch is identical. They still tend towards a generally recognised template that you can discuss.

That's why the analogy is fine. "Green" is a thing and there are many variations on green, "not green" is not an interesting or useful description of anything except grass, I guess

 

[Spark]

Essentially the argument here is that India's historic dominance over SL and Pakistan should be directly compared to Australia, England and SA and their lack of historic dominance in each other's conditions. It really shouldn't hard to see why this is complete nonsense.

In the end, it's not really difference in conditions which makes the principal difference here. It's quality. Beating any of India, England, SA or Australia at home has been historically very hard because those four countries have been historically very strong teams. WI too if we forget post-1995.

 

[Motorwada]

"Subcontinental conditions" refers to a clearly definable thing: slow pitches with low bounce that spin. Not all subcontinental pitches are like this. but generally speaking most are, in the same way that "Australian conditions" refer to fast, bouncy pitches with little swing and "English conditions" slower pitches with considerable swing and seam.

What exactly are "non subcontinental" conditions? Can you define it at all?

And if we are talking about current teams, should i then consider India's terrible record of zero wins against Pakistan in years? Virat Kohli must truly be terrible away, he hasn't scored even one run against them.

This is nonsensical.

The Pakistan argument is nonsense. We don't play. Your argument can just be reversed by saying India is unbeaten against Pakistan in years. Only team Pakistan hasn't won a match against etc etc. And we do hold the rubber against them although that's a moot point. The other Asian teams we play against we dominate and they do well against the non SC teams at home and keep beating each other (including Pakistan) just like the non-SC trio too.

The thing that is similar with Australian conditions and English conditions is that they support pace. Using your definition of subcontinental conditions many Indian pitches aren't even SC pitches because many of them have fast turn and bounce (Mumbai, Dharamsala). Some have support for seamers (Kolkata in the last two matches, Dharamsala again). Even the dustbowls are different (Pune, Bangalore etc). The Ind-SL 2015 series supported seam and SL has generally supported seam for a while. UAE pitches are flatter which support reverse swing. Bangladesh pitches turn from ball one. There is an extreme variety of conditions within Asian pitches. Add the fact that the balls used are different the variance increases (Anderson with the Duke vs a non-Duke is an example of the importance of balls)

India itself has more test venues than Eng, Aus, SA combined. The fact that pitches in these countries are 'varied' while pitches in Asia are this homogenous entity is just bias.

 

[Spark]

The Pakistan argument is nonsense. We don't play. Your argument can just be reversed by saying India is unbeaten against Pakistan in years. Only team Pakistan hasn't won a match against etc etc.

No ****, which is why it's dishonest to continue to include them in this entire discussion whilst simultaneously claiming we're just talking about current teams.

The other Asian teams we play against we dominate and they do well against the non SC teams at home and keep beating each other (including Pakistan) just like the non-SC trio too.

Yes, because you're better than them. This doesn't make India amazing away from home, it simply makes you better than them.

The thing that is similar with Australian conditions and English conditions is that they support pace. Using your definition of subcontinental conditions many Indian pitches aren't even SC pitches because many of them have fast turn and bounce (Mumbai, Dharamsala). Some have support for seamers (Kolkata in the last two matches, Dharamsala again). Even the dustbowls are different (Pune, Bangalore etc). The Ind-SL 2015 series supported seam and SL has generally supported seam for a while. UAE pitches are flatter which support reverse swing. Bangladesh pitches turn from ball one. There is an extreme variety of conditions within Asian pitches. Add the fact that the balls used are different the variance increases (Anderson with the Duke vs a non-Duke is an example of the importance of balls)

They're fast, have support for seamers etc relative to the norm. Dharamsala and Mumbai are hardly the Gabba, Kolkata isn't exactly Kingsmead or 2015 Trent Bridge as far as extravagant assistance for seam bowling goes. Nor did I claim that they were all homogeneous, that was you imputing that in your attempt to race bait. They simply tend towards a certain style of cricket, that's all. England and Australia do not tend to the same style of cricket, that's why each side gets pantsed when visiting the other.

India itself has more test venues than Eng, Aus, SA combined. The fact that pitches in these countries are 'varied' while pitches in Asia are this homogenous entity is just bias.

How is this at all relevant? You could magic up a dozen Test venues in Australia, if they're properly prepared they'll still adhere to the same general template for the simple reason that they share similar climatic conditions.

 

[Motorwada]

No ****, which is why it's dishonest to continue to include them in this entire discussion whilst simultaneously claiming we're just talking about current teams.



Yes, because you're better than them. This doesn't make India amazing away from home, it simply makes you better than them.



They're fast, have support for seamers etc relative to the norm. Dharamsala and Mumbai are hardly the Gabba, Kolkata isn't exactly Kingsmead or 2015 Trent Bridge as far as extravagant assistance for seam bowling goes. Nor did I claim that they were all homogeneous, that was you imputing that in your attempt to race bait. They simply tend towards a certain style of cricket, that's all.



How is this at all relevant? You could magic up a dozen Test venues in Australia, if they're properly prepared they'll still adhere to the same general template for the simple reason that they share similar climatic conditions.

No ****, which is why it's dishonest to continue to include them in this entire discussion whilst simultaneously claiming we're just talking about current teams.

The reason Pakistan is being included is to show how even they are unbeaten by the non-SC sides but lost to SL which shows that teams belonging in the same "sphere" can and do defeat each other away (Pak won in SL 2015) just like Eng, SA, Oz keep beating each other and isn't particularly rare.

Yes, because you're better than them. This doesn't make India amazing away from home, it simply makes you better than them.

Beat them AWAY too. This is the same logic used to prove that Eng, SA and Oz are better cause they keep beating each other away.

 

[Spark]

Beat them AWAY too. This is the same logic used to prove that Eng, SA and Oz are better cause they keep beating each other away.

England and Australia don't beat each other away at all. The reason literally anyone beating SA at home is exceptional is because SA are a ****ing incredible side. Not because South African pitches are lifted from the 7th circle of hell and spell instant doom to anyone not South African.

 

[Spark]

Like, seriously. "England and Australia are so similar, they keep beating each other away!". Such fantastic away performances by English and Australian teams like getting bowled out for 60, or failing to take 20 wickets in a single Test in a series. Such similar conditions.

 

[Motorwada]

Like, seriously. "England and Australia are so similar, they keep beating each other away!". Such fantastic away performances by English and Australian teams like getting bowled out for 60, or failing to take 20 wickets in a single Test in a series. Such similar conditions.

That's simply because they are not good enough to counter the slight variance. We keep winning in SL, they never do here. Why? Because we are so much better than them.

 

[vcs]

That's simply because they are not good enough to counter the slight variance. We keep winning in SL, they never do here. Why? Because we are so much better than them.

Actually, when SL had a great team, we really struggled there. I think 2015 was the first time we won there since the early '90s. Escaped with a drawn series in 2010 IIRC, that was our best result there.

 

[Spark]

Actually, when SL had a great team, we really struggled there. I think 2015 was the first time we won there since the early '90s. Escaped with a drawn series in 2010 IIRC, that was our best result there.

Yeah, exactly. When were SL really good? The 2000s, when they had Sanga+Mahela+solid support, and Murali+Vaas. How many series did India win in SL then?

That's simply because they are not good enough to counter the slight variance.

Lmao, this is idiotic. Yes, Trent Bridge/Edgbaston and the WACA/Gabba are so similar, the same kinds of players do so well on both.

 

[Spark]

I can just imagine Jimmy Anderson now: why won't this ball hoop around corners, this is meant to be so similar to back home!