The Test Ratings

[C_C]

India have to prove they can win away from home..India will never be regarded as a great team is they continue to flop away from home.

Just as this english team has to prove that they can win in the subcontinent.
I dont think either of IND or ENG are great teams- there arnt that many great teams in history of the game.
But inorder to be considered a great team, one has to succeed both inside and outside the subcontinent.

And i knwo that IND are strong at home ( though they have slipped in the past few seasons from their perch) which is why i think that a simple victory for IND wont do.
Assuming that ENG doesnt humiliate itself in the ashes,
If ENG wins in IND or draws the series, i would say that ENG is superior.
If ENG loses narrowly, it will again boil down to their record vs OZ and the rest
If ENG gets decimated, i would say that IND is superior.

 

[Beleg]

We will see how England does in sub-continent in Novmeber. If Pakistan can get their act together and learn the meaning of the phrase 'home advantage' then we will have a pretty good series at our hands.

 

[superkingdave]

Just as this english team has to prove that they can win in the subcontinent.

They have won 2 from their last 4 series in the subcontinent and only lost the other 2 by 1-0

 

[C_C]

England's last 4 series in the subcontinent ( dunno why 4 but whatever):



ENG in SL 2003 lost 3 test series 0-1)
Summary: Draw, Draw, Loss ( innings and 215 runs)

ENG in BD 2003 won 2 test series 2-0)
Summary: won(7 wkts), won (329 runs)

ENG in IND 2001 lost 3 test series 0-1)
Summary: Loss(10 wickets), Draw, Draw

ENG in SL 2001 won 2-1)
Summary: Loss(innings and 28 runs), won (3wkts),won( 4 wickets)


I wouldnt call that a successful trip in the subcontinent....

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If ENG gets decimated, i would say that IND is superior.

Australia were decimated a few times in the subcontinent in the 90s, but they were still a lot better than India were. If India go to England and win, then they can certainly make a solid claim, but if England is pounding all other opposition where India fail to win, put up a good fight against Australia and then get thrashed in India, it might be a blight on the record of England but it wouldn't mean India are a better team, just that they have a significant home ground advantage that England struggled with.

Generally though I agree, England will be looking to be competitive against Australia and competitive in India to back up their fantastic recent record and prove themselves as the outright number 2.

 

[superkingdave]

England's last 4 series in the subcontinent ( dunno why 4 but whatever):



ENG in SL 2003 lost 3 test series 0-1)
Summary: Draw, Draw, Loss ( innings and 215 runs)

ENG in BD 2003 won 2 test series 2-0)
Summary: won(7 wkts), won (329 runs)

ENG in IND 2001 lost 3 test series 0-1)
Summary: Loss(10 wickets), Draw, Draw

ENG in SL 2001 won 2-1)
Summary: Loss(innings and 28 runs), won (3wkts),won( 4 wickets)


I wouldnt call that a successful trip in the subcontinent....

I wasn't counting Bangladesh, if you include them its 3 from 5 which whilst not good is still far from poor - ie its not comparable to India's failure outside the subcontinent

 

[C_C]

But the point is, England hasnt pounded all opposition it has come across, unlike AUS
Oh and in the mid 90s, IND was abyssimal away from home and while the aussies were by no means the clear best team, they were in contention with south africa for that slot, owing to their victories against quality teams- something that ENG hasnt done.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

England's last 4 series in the subcontinent ( dunno why 4 but whatever):



ENG in SL 2003 lost 3 test series 0-1)
Summary: Draw, Draw, Loss ( innings and 215 runs)

ENG in BD 2003 won 2 test series 2-0)
Summary: won(7 wkts), won (329 runs)

ENG in IND 2001 lost 3 test series 0-1)
Summary: Loss(10 wickets), Draw, Draw

ENG in SL 2001 won 2-1)
Summary: Loss(innings and 28 runs), won (3wkts),won( 4 wickets)


I wouldnt call that a successful trip in the subcontinent....

Prior to last year, Australia's last 5 subcontinent trips:
India vs Australia 1998
Loss 2-1 (Loss 179 runs, loss innings & 219 runs, win 8 wickets)

Pakistan vs Australia 1998
Win 1-0 (Win innings & 99 runs, draw, draw)

Sri Lanka vs Australia 1999
Loss 1-0 (Loss 6 wickets, draw, draw)

India vs Australia 2001
Loss 2-1 (Win 10 wickets, loss 171 runs, loss 2 wickets)

Pakistan vs Australia 2002
Win 3-0 (win 41 runs, win innings & 198 runs, win innings & 20 runs)

Now, judging by that list, Australia really struggled in the subcontinent in that time and by your logic their claim to be the best team in the world would be seriously shaken by that...

That ignores however that in 1998 Australia was decimated by injury and it was a massive effort to just win one test, against Pakistan Australia dominated the series but woeful wickets kept the other two games to nothing draws, in Sri Lanka Australia suffered one batting collapse followed by a shocking injury that took out two players including their new captain and lost one test, then dominated the next two but were denied by rain, in 2001 Australia were highly competitive and would have won the series if it wasn't for one of the greatest ever freakish batting efforts from Laxman, and in 2002 Australia were unstoppable.

You can't just look at results, being competitive is the key.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But the point is, England hasnt pounded all opposition it has come across, unlike IND.
Oh and in the mid 90s, IND was abyssimal away from home and while the aussies were by no means the clear best team, they were in contention with south africa for that slot, owing to their victories against quality teams- something that ENG hasnt done.

Australia certainly were the clear best team in the 90s, owing to the fact that they consistently beat South Africa in each and every meeting. Their sides were close on paper, but several factors (one of the major ones imo being the captaincy of Taylor) led to South Africa consistently failing against Australia. If you have a clear 1 and 2 and one of them consistently beats the other both home and away, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

 

[C_C]

Umm.
I wouldnt say that.
OZ were a decent team when the 90s rolled in, they became a good team in the early half of the 90s and were dominating from the second half onwards.
South Africa held parity with Australia in the first half of 90s (both series were drawn) with the aussies pulling away in the second half
By the time 98 rolled around, OZ were dominating the field handsomely. As such, the relative gap between OZ and subcontinental teams were considerably wider than the relative gap between ENG and IND (whichever way you see it).

 

[marc71178]

I think this says more for the quality of Bangladesh's U/19's side than the Aussie one.

Which is ironically just about the same team that people are wanting to throw out of World Cricket when they lose the U19 tag.

 

[marc71178]

Anyway, Tremlett looks like a very good bowler to me, so I'm not sure what EnglishRose has against him.

Nobody knows, but apparently it's enough to write him off before he even sees him...

 

[marc71178]

Swervy- England is better than IND when it comes to other teams - though marginally.
Much of last year's successes have been built on the back of weak teams

The old weak thing - funny how before each series, close ones were expected, but England then dominated...