SL has always done extremely well at home. Secondly, most of it was being Mendised, and a novelty factor more than anything. Murali has played on spinning tracks in India, and has been average at best. As has Warne. Both have been outdone by quite mediocre Indian spinners.
See.. when you talk of attacking batsmen, you would do well to chk the RPO outside the subcontinent and over here...
Has more to do with England's batting lineup than anythingMost of the pitches over here produce results, it's the weather that puts a stop to this. I can't remember too many Tests in England where games have ground to a draw without the rain's help. Saffa at Lord's last year perhaps.
Don't group us in with all of your shambolic pitches
In what sense? What is the relevance?
Well they haven't lost a single series of the last nine spread over six years. During this time they have lost only three matches out of 26 so it wont be easy.
Good point, Stuart Broad says hiHas more to do with England's batting lineup than anything
Exactly, that's what I was saying - SL have always done well at home - against everyone. It's got nothing to do with spinning wickets in India and how well India do on them.
I think we have started going round and round so its time for me to say, I rest my case
But Sri Lanka's pitches are receptive to spin and yet the Indian bowlers do pretty badly there.
Yup. But the same bowlers do really well against SL in India. SL have never won a Test in India.
Maybe - doesn't explain Pakistan.
Diet, genetics, cooler climate, role models imo.
I don't agree, because "batting friendly" is a completely relative concept. If all they play on is wickets you'd consider to be batting friendly, I highly doubt they'd actually consider them all batting friendly themselves - they'd consider the least batting friendly of the wickets they encountered to be bowling friendly, even though you wouldn't. By 1850s standards, every serious pitch in the world at the moment is a batsman's paradise to an absolutely ridiculous extent, so your logic would mean there'd be no decent bowlers at all, anywhere. Relativity of non-absolute concepts is something people really struggle with on this forum for some reason.
In the sense that batsmen don't and generally can't play in the same aggressive vein here as they can outside... That is why more of them try to be content with being able to defend in these conditions than anything else...
The muslim population in India tends to be of a lower socio economic group than in Pakistan tbh. Logical, considering Pakistan ended up with the feudal landlord population among the muslims of the subcontinent. Per capita meat consumption in Pakistan is more that twice that of India. Climate is definitely an issue imo. 'Winters' in the south are a misnomer, and while the north does have cooler winters that are comparable to Pakistan, there are other factors at play. I might be wrong, but the area seems to tend towards hockey and wrestling. Australia and SA are definitely cooler, plenty of Indian players put on their jumpers when playing in the Australian summer down under.
The differences are too small for that to be such a great factor IMO. Also, it flies in the face of batting in West Indies being difficult, in the sense that aggressive batting is harder. As they Sri Lanka and India have the lowest ER rates in the world. Through this decade they've not only had flat tracks but pretty underwhelming bowlers too; so that asserts something different. I don't think the ER rates play a significant factor in the draws as Sri Lanka, where pitches are more conducive to results, has the lowest ERs in the world. The difference between the lowest and highest ERs is ~0.3 runs and even smaller in the middling ones; whereas the difference in the proportion of draws is very large.