Sudeep said:
marc71178 said:
so let me get this straight....new zealand whitewashed india at home and drew the series in india and yet they are not even at the same level?thats ridiculous reasoning saying that they lost to pakistan etc....india lost to WI in WI so what does that say??and do me a favour dont blame it on the pitches when india got custom made flat wickets in australia to favour them.honestbharani said:
why because they'll be playing a full strength aussie side? theres no better way to compare teams than when they play each other!!stop bringing up how they play against everyone else.honestbharani said:
chicane said:
Yes, because the obvious way of comparing 2 sides that have played each other in 2 series recently is by looking at their results against a 3rd team who are the most inconsistent team in the World...honestbharani said:
As and when the bowling improves...honestbharani said:
First off TEC not all the pitches in Australia were flat. The Brisbane one had some movement and the Melbourne one had pace and bounce. If you saw the first session of the Melbourne test, you would know. Brett Lee was at his hostile best and there were several close chances. Both Sehwag and Chopra got hit on the head more than once and the 1st hour only had 24 runs. Then the way Sehwag blazed away was amazing, blasting 25 fours and 5 sixes before he self destructed and gave the game away. In New Zealand the wickets were ridiculous and unplayable, again it doesn't appear you remember it very well. Those conditons suited them so much just like indian conditions suited Indian spinners. India have always beaten Australia and other teams convincingly at home, but they were never really on par with them. The WI series was sheer inconsistency, something which has shown improvement.tooextracool said:
Hell no, from what it appears they may not have to face McGrath. Anyway, Warne should be enough of a threat for you guystooextracool said:
. The frequent comparisons with Australia are simply because they are the benchmark.
If you think and analyze this Indian team and compare it man to man, and also remember Australia(Yes remember it it's the benchmark), you'll see they do have a distinct edge over England and New Zealand. I'd say we're head to head with South Africa(who also struggled in New Zealand), and Australia is alone at the top.marc71178 said:
When India beat England in Headingly, the wicket was nowhere like it had to be. When India were in Australia, the pitches were all flat and favoured the batsmen. When India went to Pakistan, all pitches were flat and favvoured India and some matches were fixed.......marc71178 said:
you didnt watch too many of those games did you?chicane said:When India beat England in Headingly, the wicket was nowhere like it had to be. When India were in Australia, the pitches were all flat and favoured the batsmen. When India went to Pakistan, all pitches were flat and favvoured India and some matches were fixed.......
dont be ridiculous, the best way to compare 2 teams is by looking at performances between each other! just because NZ drew the series with india doesnt make them a better team than australia who didnt!!chicane said:
because both teams have a better bowling lineup than indias?chicane said:
yea cause they got whitewashed in NZchicane said:
So South Africa struggled in New Zealand, will you say NZ are beter than SA? Just like in India, NZ home conditions favour them way too much. We've been thrashing most teams at home all along, but we were never near the best in the world then - Australia and South Africa. Pakistan are very inconsistent, but you have no idea of the intensity in an India-Pakistan game, and they play us with more intensity than anyone else. Some spells that Shoaib produced were frightening and he may well have destroyed some batting line-ups, but we saw it through. And there was a difference in the pitches in NZ and Pakistan. New Zealand just couldn't cope with the red-hot pace of Shoaib and Sami, and they were also thrashed in Pakistan. They struggled against Brett Lee and now Harmison is doing well against them. Indian batsmen, especially the openers, have really played well against extreme pace, another significant improvement.marc71178 said:
marc71178 said:
interestingly enough the only time there was any movement was when australia batted after the rain and completely collapsed.chicane said:
yep 1 session out of 15....sounds like a real bowlers paradise....and remind me who won that match?chicane said:
haha joke of the yearchicane said:
so?even NZ had to bat on those wickets?you just said india can win anywhere and on seaming wickets so whats wrong with those conditions??chicane said:
just like those in australia and pakistan suited the indian batting lineupchicane said:
arent WI the worst team in the world?when harmison gets 7/12 you rule it out as being WI are so poor yet they managed to beat indiachicane said:
yet they will still have kasparowicz,warne and perhaps lehmannchicane said:
sure NZ drew the series here and it was commendable, but India are not the benchmark......Just because India have been beating Australia at home for the past 34 years doesn't make them a better team. You have to think a little more TEC...tooextracool said:
I think we have a promising pace attack, and we have two world-class spinners. Not too bad, but our batting is the best in the world, can you say that about England?tooextracool said:
Read above.tooextracool said: