India 2 Convicts 0

[canveyshrimper]

India have just comnpleted a 2-0 series victory over Australia. From what I have seen of the convict side it is a pale shadow of the team that has dominated (2005 aside) for many years.

The retirements of Warne, McGrath, Langer etc has obviously impacted heavily on them, Bully boy Hayden is not the player he once was, although Ponting, Hussey & Clarke give the top 5 an experienced look I would question that Shane Watson is a test class number 6.

Although Jason Krezcja (spelling) took 12 wickets on debut he went for plenty and Cameron White who is a decent bat doesn't look a test class leg spinner IMO. Difficult to judge Brad Haddin behind the stumps and he seems to have done an adequate job with both bat and gloves, but he has a tough act to follow in "walker" Gilchrist.

Even the quick bowling is looking a bit threadbare, however this series was in India so we should see what they are like back home or later in the winter when they visit Seth Effrika. Brett Lee looks knackered, Stuart Clark not up to it, but Mitchell Johnson looks like he will be a top class bowler given time.

It will be very interesting to see what side they will field home and away against the Saffers and how they fare. I reckon that Smith's team are fancying their chances.

I hope that this will bode well for England ahead of the Ashes here next year, I hope that the tours of India & the West Indies will prove successful, and I can see us going into next summer as slight favourites,

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The Convicts have now officially slipped into the pack. Not just a defeat, but a clear defeat. Other than in the Ashes, I can't remember the last time England lost a series by more than a single test. I don't even think that India are all that, although they've probably got enough to defeat England.

The Convicts batting remains decent, but without McGrath and Warne they don't have a top class bowling attack that you need to win tests series. They don't have a test class spinner and Lee is suffering from having to carry the bowling attack. Johnson and Tait have talent, but so does Saj Mahmood and Tait has to sort his head out before the Convicts can even consider picking him and allowing him to learn on the job. I don't think Clark is all that (neither do the Aussie selectors) and I'd prefer Noffke. The other problem the Convicts have is they need a 5th bowler, Watson has potential but isn't there yet but if they pick him that weakens their batting and his bowling isn't quite test class yet. Even the Aussie batting is showing signs of weakness and looks to be merely very good instead of great.

Please, please, please let Pietersen drag England away from Moores' mediocrity, so we can make the most of it next summer.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Good call about Tait YB, must admit I had forgotten about him, and agree he needs to sort his head, from what little I've seen I'm not that sure about Ashley Noffke.

If they leave out Watson then I guess the return of Symonds will help the batting but not the bowling as IMO Watson is a much better bowler, and that will leave them with 4 front line bowlers. Fine if they are McGrath, Lee, Warne etc but not so good if Brett Lee has to carry the attack.

I think we will be able to make a better judgement after the convicts play South Africa.

As far as India v England goes, the Indian side maybe in a little transition with the retirements of Ganguly & Kumble, and I think that Dravid & Tendulkar may not be far behind them. I think that India in India will be too good for England and I think they will take the series 1-0.

England in the West Indies should be a series win for England, then bring on the Convicts.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Good call about Tait YB, must admit I had forgotten about him, and agree he needs to sort his head, from what little I've seen I'm not that sure about Ashley Noffke.

If they leave out Watson then I guess the return of Symonds will help the batting but not the bowling as IMO Watson is a much better bowler, and that will leave them with 4 front line bowlers. Fine if they are McGrath, Lee, Warne etc but not so good if Brett Lee has to carry the attack.

I think we will be able to make a better judgement after the convicts play South Africa.

As far as India v England goes, the Indian side maybe in a little transition with the retirements of Ganguly & Kumble, and I think that Dravid & Tendulkar may not be far behind them. I think that India in India will be too good for England and I think they will take the series 1-0.

England in the West Indies should be a series win for England, then bring on the Convicts.

Symonds isn't test class - except as a specialist fielder. His test average is an affront to test cricket. Half his runs are edges, the other half are ugly swipes over cow corner. He's dropped about half a dozen times on average each innings and inexplicably reprieved by the umpire at least twice each innings.

Don't think South Africa are all that either, although a fit and firing Dale Steyn could make a difference.

I don't think the Convicts are good enough to win anywhere on the sub-continent except against the Bangles. The series I'd like to see now is Sri Lanka and/or India in Oz. I think they would be two very closely fought series.

It's a shamedisgrace England have only 2 tests in India this winter, but I agree with your 1-0 to India prediction. I also think England will struggle in the WIndies.

 

[number11]

Being a bit of a loser Ive been following this series quite closely as always felt it could be a significant series for the next phase of test cricket. Bar a few sessions India dominated the convicts and 2-0 was a fair reflection of the series.

The main thing that struck me about Australia is the balance they now lack. When they were (almost) unbeatable they had 7 genuine test batsmen and 4 world class bowlers.

For starters the retirement of Gilchrist brought their number 7 in line with most other teams and Haddin looks to be adequate but nothing more....and whilst perhaps more efficient with the gloves than Prior Id expect Prior to outscore him over a series (or Flintoff if he batted at 7).

With them losing 2 (3 if you include Gillespie from his peak excellent peak years) world world class bowlers not only do they lose the guaranteed wickets, they have now tried to get overs in from their number 6 (Symonds or Watson) which again weakens their batting.

To compensate they have taken to playing the likes of Cameron White at number 8. A decent batsman, (prob not test class at this stage) but is he any better a leg spinner than Ian Salisbury? Watching some of White's leg side deliveries was something to behold!

I always think test cricket is a game for specialist (except the keeper....but thats another debate) and all rounders who are not quite up to test level in either discipline (Watson, White, Symonds) can leave you vulnerable.

South Africa against Australia wll be two very interesting series. No Australian captain since Border has had to deal with a few series defeats on the trot, and Id be happy if Ricky 'Slow over Rates' Ponting is facing heavy criticism come next summer.

India had far better balance.....they have for the first time in my memory a good opening partnership to lay a platform for their still excellent middle order. On Indian wickets their 4 bowlers with 2 spinners look capable of taking 20 wickets.

Id go along with India to beat us 1-0 and a high scoring draw. Of more importance though I hope the challenge to be the top team can ignite test cricket. After India's win in the 20/20 a frenzy for that format occurred over there. If their test side can challenge for the top then hopefully Test Cricket can regain its place as the most popular format.

 

[sufcintheprem]

It almost seems like a different sport watchign test cricket in India but that's no reason to treat the test series as an experiment which is about the only reason I can see behind playing twice against the most likely world no.1.

I actually got to watch the last few overs of pretty much every day's play in the last two tests and the Aussies definitely lacked that imperiousness they used to possess. I honestly think that to win in india you need to have an excellent spinner. Krejza showed what you can do with limited ability. Kumble obviously had other things on his mind, Harbhajan was generall ineffective and Mishra in spite of taking 14 wickets in 6 innings didn't really impress me that much. In spite of that, the spinners all seemed to come awya with the best figures. The pick of the slow bowlers from what I saw was Sehwag who seemed at times desperately unlucky.

Johnson bowled well, Khan and Lee could have been better but Sharma belied his ridiculous look and seemed the genuine threatening bowler who was making match turning breakthroughs.

To be honest, for an India Australia series it was just a bit tepid really. Rarely was there anything to get too excited about although most things involving Gambhir were better. Tendulkar quietly went about his way and somehow ended up second top scorer in a way that tends to happen to genuinely top class batsmen.

I suppose the most remarkable thing about the series was exactly the lowish key nature of the event. Having an empty stadium maybe took an edge off of the finale but Australia never looked desperate to dominate the match and India never seemed particularly exuberant that they had won. It all points to not only the end of Aussie dominance but the general acceptance by them and others that it has happened.

 

[sufcintheprem]

On Watson, interestingly, he took more wickets for fewer runs with a better economy than Brett Lee.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

On Watson, interestingly, he took more wickets for fewer runs with a better economy than Brett Lee.

Watson looked worryingly like Hoggy when he was appealing. I found it quite disconcerting.