*Official* England in India

[Cevno]

You mean India will probably think the England tour was a one off now after this series.

doubt it

how can a team forget about a 4-0 thrashing to go with losing the no.1 rank

plus the test side is not the same as the odi side.

Certainly no one will completely forget it and shouldn't either, but Indians are used to getting thrashed on some away tours and recovering again at home and did all throughout the nineties especially.

Unless they are thrashed in Australia too, all signs will point towards more or less treating it as a one off. A major one off but a one off nevertheless. Haven't seen a massive reaction so far from the BCCI or the public as was seen during the 2007 world cup. It is certainly has been a bigger deal for the English so far, compared to the Indians.

And also to add to that the Indian general public that is not the CW one, give about as much importance to ODI's as they do to tests, so this has certainly help overcome that tour to a extent.

 

[Daemon]

And also to add to that the Indian general public that is not the CW one, give about as much importance to ODI's as they do to tests, so this has certainly help overcome that tour to a large extent.

Yeah, important distinction.

 

[Cevno]

Really? So that's the reason why England are bad at ODIs?

Every one agrees that tests are the most important and demanding forms of the game, but ODIs do require their own set of skills and an example of that is that there aren't any ODI greats that you can say were poor cricketers overall. Saying that England give no importance at all to any ODI series doesn't make sense to me; it may be your own viewpoint but I don't the the ECB and the players take that stand. Furthermore Flower's reaction yesterday showed that they did in fact treat this series seriously. I don't deny that England obviously prioritize tests a lot higher than ODIs, even when compared to other nations, but that doesn't mean ODIs are meaningless to them.

Saying that the players had a cbf attitude throughout this series is also slightly odd imo. Do you honestly think guys like Bopara, Patel, Bairstow, Bresnan, Finn, Dernbach, Borthwick and Meaker, all guys who are essentially fighting for a consistent run at the top level in international limelight, simply can't give a **** about the series and aren't focussed? Pieterson with his aggressive attitude wouldn't want to fail, and neither would a 26 year old captain.

AWTA.

The players were clearly bothered just seeing their reactions and behavior etc.. on the field throughout the series. Even yesterday Bresnan and Cook's reactions when getting dismissed were there to see and they are more senior members of the side.

 

[centurymaker]

it is not about being a success. it is about his record in odis being so good so as to reflect on his test performances and heighten them. the fact is, they do not. but nobody really cares about that since his test record speaks for itself.

let's not break up careers. if he played in his late 30s, he played in his late 30s, and his record during that period should be counted. it is silly to start choosing and picking bits of careers to buttress arguements.

however, even if one were to stop his career conveniently in 88, while his bowling improves, his batting goes down by an 4 runs on average. swings and roundabouts!

at the start of 1990 he had an bowling avg of 23 and a batting avg of 32 (and that is after 15-16 years into his career).

idk how anyone can call that mediocre.


that bolded part makes no sense. how is ignoring last 1-2 years of a such a long career silly?
everyone knows that in the last couple of years of his career including the 1991 wc, he was only really there for his batting and leadership.
He had already established, well before the world cup, that he was a very good odi cricketer, so looking at his final avg is very misleading.

btw you have misunderstoof me, if your record in odis is crap it will affect your rating but if it's decent then it prob won't make much difference...

being successful doesn't mean you have to avg 24 in odis. it's about performing at a reasonably high level.

crap/mediccre odi record = negatively affects your rating. (steyn atm)
decent odi record = has little impact on your rating (imran)
awesome record= enhances your rating. (wasim, mcgrath)

 

[chicane]

Certainly no one will completely forget it and shouldn't either, but Indians are used to getting thrashed on some away tours and recovering again at home and did all throughout the nineties especially.

Unless they are thrashed in Australia too, all signs will point towards more or less treating it as a one off. A major one off but a one off nevertheless. Haven't seen a massive reaction so far from the BCCI or the public as was seen during the 2007 world cup. It is certainly has been a bigger deal for the English so far, compared to the Indians.

And also to add to that the Indian general public that is not the CW one, give about as much importance to ODI's as they do to tests, so this has certainly help overcome that tour to a large extent.

Yeah it was hard to believe the relatively mild reaction considering what a huge tour and what a beating it was.

 

[Daemon]

The media had a huge part in that. Gawd, brings back such bad memories

 

[Spark]

Perhaps "not caring" is the wrong way to put it. "A lack of passion and purpose" might be better.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yep, the players and public in England don't really care about one day cricket as much as the rest of the world do. What a surprise that a pointless money making tour isn't treated properly by them.

So thats why the ODI's against Australia and India at Lords the last couple of years have been sold out while the Tests haven't been. Hmm...

 

[hang on]

at the start of 1990 he had an bowling avg of 23 and a batting avg of 32 (and that is after 15-16 years into his career).

idk how anyone can call that mediocre.


that bolded part makes no sense. how is ignoring last 1-2 years of a such a long career silly?
everyone knows that in the last couple of years of his career including the 1991 wc, he was only really there for his batting and leadership.
He had already established, well before the world cup, that he was a very good odi cricketer, so looking at his final avg is very misleading.

btw you have misunderstoof me, if your record in odis is crap it will affect your rating but if it's decent then it prob won't make much difference...

being successful doesn't mean you have to avg 24 in odis. it's about performing at a reasonably high level.

crap/mediccre odi record = negatively affects your rating. (steyn atm)
decent odi record = has little impact on your rating (imran)
awesome record= enhances your rating. (wasim, mcgrath)

why should one conveniently ignore chunks of a person's career, whether at the beginning or the end or somewhere in between? that is silly and arguably disingenuous. one might as well pick and choose series where a player did well or even only countries where he toured well. where does one draw the line? a career needs to be looked at in toto. for example, it does not make sense to look at tendulkar's career in a way that disregards his first few years when he was still learning the ropes and was no great shakes despite a couple of outstanding knocks. or count out his lean patch when he was out of form and was afflicted with tennis elbow in the mid noughties. similarly, why not count out botham's prolonged tailing off and anoint him a far better test all rounder than imran? it does not work like that. as mentioned earlier, where does one draw the line?

tell me something: is marshall considered any less of a fast bowler since his odi record is not insignificantly inferior to that of garner or mcgrath? or, for that matter, is bevan a better batsman by virtue of his outstanding odi record?

it is safe to say that when one talks of the great batsmen and bowlers, it is those whose test exploits and achievements are superb who are referred to. if their odi records are also excellent, it is a bonus, but not really important in the calculus of greatness. that is why bevan is hardly the first person who comes to mind when one starts a conversation about great batsmen.

 

[Daemon]

oi, take the imran buttsex elsewhere

 

[centurymaker]

why should one conveniently ignore chunks of a person's career, whether at the beginning or the end or somewhere in between? that is silly and arguably disingenuous. one might as well pick and choose series where a player did well or even only countries where he toured well. where does one draw the line? a career needs to be looked at in toto. for example, it does not make sense to look at tendulkar's career in a way that disregards his first few years when he was still learning the ropes and was no great shakes despite a couple of outstanding knocks. or count out his lean patch when he was out of form and was afflicted with tennis elbow in the mid noughties. similarly, why not count out botham's prolonged tailing off and anoint him a far better test all rounder than imran? it does not work like that. as mentioned earlier, where does one draw the line?

tell me something: is marshall considered any less of a fast bowler since his odi record is not insignificantly inferior to that of garner or mcgrath? or, for that matter, is bevan a better batsman by virtue of his outstanding odi record?

it is safe to say that when one talks of the great batsmen and bowlers, it is those whose test exploits and achievements are superb who are referred to. if their odi records are also excellent, it is a bonus, but not really important in the calculus of greatness. that is why bevan is hardly the first person who comes to mind when one starts a conversation about great batsmen.

comparing marshall to mcgrath is like comparing lara to Kallis (or dravid).

no matter what kallis or dravid do in tests/odis, they won't surpass lara.
massive style difference.

now if tendulkar keeps on playing till the age of 42/43 (which is equivalent to imran playing till the age of 39) and loses 5-6 points off his avg, will you/others not try to discount that too when comparing him with others?

lets say kallis retires next year with an avg of 58+, while tendulkar ends up with 50/51 after playing for another 4 years. I'm sure most cricket fans will discount his last couple of years when comparing him with kallis.

 

[marc71178]

The fact that English players are doing well in tests makes fans put higher emphasis on the format because it gives them the prestige of being associated with a great team.

No, pure and simply you're wrong. Even back in 1999 the Tests were what mattered more than ODIs.

 

[marc71178]

that bolded part makes no sense. how is ignoring last 1-2 years of a such a long career silly?

Without that last 1-2 years you lose his entire ODI legacy (certainly the bit that sets him apart from a lot of his peers)

 

[wpdavid]

Most probably we will see slight turners that can ensure 5 days of play. BCCI usually makes a match go to all 5 days so that the broadcasters can make more money out of it.

Fair point. I suppose after yesterday's debacle they won't feel that the pitches need to turn miles against England's batters, especially as half of the test side's top six were clueless once the spinners came on. But I'm sure they'll want payback for the 0-4 reverse in England, and maybe a few days' lost revenue will be seen as being worth it.

 

[wpdavid]

No, pure and simply you're wrong. Even back in 1999 the Tests were what mattered more than ODIs.

True - but there's still an element of chicken & egg here. tbh I've switched off ODIs because we've been useless at them for most of the last 16 years, and I suspect I'm not alone. However, I do struggle to believe that our uselessness in this format is because the players don't care enough about them. It's simply that the standard of domestic one-day cricket is so piss-poor that we have no chance against anyone who's any good at the game.

 

[marc71178]

If you look at it though, we aren't always terrible at ODIs - I think I saw somewhere we've only lost 3 of something like 14 bilateral series.

 

[Furball]

If you look at it though, we aren't always terrible at ODIs - I think I saw somewhere we've only lost 3 of something like 14 bilateral series.

We're a decent side - as I've said before since the start of 2008 we've beaten everyone at home in a bilateral series with the exception of New Zealand. Most of those series wins tend to be fairly tight - the South Africa series in 2008 and the recent India series are the only 2 in that time frame that have been won comfortably, and our away record isn't terrible either. When we lose, we tend to get absolutely hammered - 2008 and 2011 against India, 2009 and 2011 vs Australia.

There's been so much bollocks written about the team's mental approach, not caring etc. None of that changes a complete inability to play spin. As soon as Cook and Kieswetter were dismissed, it became a procession - virtually every single England batsman went into a shell and played the spinners as if they'd encased their feet in blocks of cement. Good luck winning games if you're going to play the opposition spinners from the crease with absolutely zero foot movement.

 

[Daemon]

We're a decent side - as I've said before since the start of 2008 we've beaten everyone at home in a bilateral series with the exception of New Zealand. Most of those series wins tend to be fairly tight - the South Africa series in 2008 and the recent India series are the only 2 in that time frame that have been won comfortably, and our away record isn't terrible either. When we lose, we tend to get absolutely hammered - 2008 and 2011 against India, 2009 and 2011 vs Australia.

There's been so much bollocks written about the team's mental approach, not caring etc. None of that changes a complete inability to play spin. As soon as Cook and Kieswetter were dismissed, it became a procession - virtually every single England batsman went into a shell and played the spinners as if they'd encased their feet in blocks of cement. Good luck winning games if you're going to play the opposition spinners from the crease with absolutely zero foot movement.

Best post on the problems so far.

That's the only thing England should look into from the series (besides the fielding and death bowling). Broad and Anderson were also missing and their replacements, Dern**** and Bresnan were pretty poor. (Granted the latter had a few good spells).

 

[Furball]

Best post on the problems so far.

That's the only thing England should look into from the series (besides the fielding and death bowling). Broad and Anderson were also missing and their replacements, Dern**** and Bresnan were pretty poor. (Granted the latter had a few good spells).

On the fielding issue:

Going back to the fielding - I think we're over-rating the fielding ability of the current side because the Test side is such a well drilled unit - but that's possible because the Test side is pretty settled and because each member of the side has a more specialised position in Tests.

Strauss - 1st slip
Cook - short leg/3rd slip
Trott - square leg/midwicket
Pietersen - gully
Bell - short leg/covers
Morgan - point
Prior - wicketkeeper
Swann - 2nd slip
Broad - mid on/off/fine leg
Anderson - 3rd slip/mid on/off
Tremlett/Bresnan/Finn - fine leg

Of the ODI players in that lineup, Cook's positions don't really exist, neither does Pietersen's or Swann's to an extent, we're missing Bell, Morgan, Broad and Anderson who are amongst our best ground fielders. The likes of Patel, Bopara, Trott, Finn, Dernbach, Bresnan and Cook don't strike me as being particularly quick or athletic across the ground - that's 7 of the playing 11. How many times did India take singles to Cook that simply shouldn't have been singles? Then to those 7, add in the fact that the wicketkeeper is pretty rubbish and that Bairstow is a specialist keeper and Swann a specialist slip, and we've really only got Pietersen who I'd say is actually any good in the field for an ODI side (although Bairstow to his credit fielded pretty well.)

And as much as I've laid into the fact that Kieswetter is just dire, some of the throws he had to contend with today were woeful.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

GF the test side might be well drilled but spilled a ridiculous amount of catches this summer. Swann in particular has been spilling chance after chance ever since the ashes. As for the showing in the one dayers, well only really Bairstow stood out and he is a bloody keeper ffs.