What has changed over the years?

[King]

As for overseas tours are concerned India don't seem bad travellers. I know India hasn't really won overseas consistently but they are at least making efforts in the right direction winning a test at least. A test win last century was a rare thing barring a little span of time. In this century India has won test matches in Australia, Pakistan, South Africa, England, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. The current test and series isn't won yet but I wonder what has changed over the years that seems to suggest India as a test team seem to compete and at times even do well.

[varun]

I mentioned the use of fast pitches these days in domestic cricket in another thread, but it would be nice if someone could collect some domestic cricket stats (maybe something like average first innings score by decade would be nice) :D Playing on all kinds of pitches in domestic cricket naturally helps both the batsmen and bowlers adapt to non-subcontinent conditions.

[Predator_05]

1. Better coaching. John Wright (in conjunction with Saurav Ganguly) turned Indian cricket around by instilling a sense of professionalism and by inculcating the importance of physical fitness within the players. This resulted in the players becoming more combative on the pitch, especially away from home 2. Fast bowlers. John Wright and co. were always on the look-out for up and coming seamers. The likes of Zaheer, Nehra, Agarkar and later Pathan were backed over spinners and this allowed India to field a more incisive all-surface bowling attack which wasn't dependent on certain conditions. Their encouragement of fast bowlers set a trend, reflected by the increasing # of fast-bowlers in the domestic circuit as opposed to spin bowlers, who are quickly becoming a dying breed

[Ram]

I think having experienced batsman in the line-up also plays a huge role. This is the third tour for many of the batsman of this squad and that must have surely helped them.

[yoda]

prolly sick and tired of losing?

[Ram]

After this series , i dont think anybody can call us bad travelers

[gs]

After this series ' date=' i dont think anybody can call us bad travelers[/quote'] I'd wait till the test series is complete before drawing this conclusion

[Donny]

Ravi, where is the option for 'Weaker opposition teams' ? Surely, this is a factor. The overall standard of Test teams from second rated England to equal 6th. rated Pakistan and New Zealand, with the possibly exception of Sri Lanka, has been sub standard for years now and The Windies and Bangladesh have simply not been competitive. WI has won 1 Test from their last 24, against Pakistan at home.

[King]

That's a ridiculous suggestion Donny. England at home haven't lost a test series including to even Australia. Can you suggest how England have been able to manage the winning streak at home since 2001 if they were that weak? Similarly was Australia of 2003-04 among "Weaker opposition teams"? India drew the series in Australia in 2003-04 if you will remember.

[Donny]

Yes. Even poorer oppositions. England's pretence of being competitive was exposed in the last Ashes series. They were thrashed. If India's best is to draw a series in Australia - bearing in mind their only win came against an attack of Williams (who?) Bichel, Gillespie & MacGill - then that further emphasises their plight. That you stoop to the level of dsr & Bheembhai with insult and sarcasm is disappointing mate. None of your options even mentioned opposition teams. I thought it reasonable to ask about that.

[MundaPakistani]

Ravi, where is the option for 'Weaker opposition teams' ? Surely, this is a factor. The overall standard of Test teams from second rated England to equal 6th. rated Pakistan and New Zealand, with the possibly exception of Sri Lanka, has been sub standard for years now and The Windies and Bangladesh have simply not been competitive. WI has won 1 Test from their last 24, against Pakistan at home.

Yes but back in the 90s and even as late as 01 IND weren't even able to beat ZIM.

[King]

Yes. Even poorer oppositions. England's pretence of being competitive was exposed in the last Ashes series. They were thrashed. If India's best is to draw a series in Australia - bearing in mind their only win came against an attack of Williams (who?) Bichel, Gillespie & MacGill - then that further emphasises their plight. That you stoop to the level of dsr & Bheembhai with insult and sarcasm is disappointing mate. None of your options even mentioned opposition teams. I thought it reasonable to ask about that.

Come on Donny. "insult and sarcasm" where did that come from? Don't tell me you don't use "ridiculous" word often with your mates. You are being over sensitive Donny. That wasn't meant to insult. At times you make me wonder if you are pom :D Only blokes from Northern hemisphere can be this sensitive. Down under I would think "ridiculous" is an ok word to use. Still that doesn't explain England's form at home. None has lost a test series in England since 2001. I guess credit is due here. You are simply saying India is winning tests overs thanks to weaker opposition.

[veer]

you can always start a poll on.. 1. why ponting always sucked in India and or 2. why warne has poor records against India. . but meanwhile these are the option you have on this poll.. just deal with it.. :D

[veer]

Yes. Even poorer oppositions. England's pretence of being competitive was exposed in the last Ashes series. They were thrashed. If India's best is to draw a series in Australia - bearing in mind their only win came against an attack of Williams (who?) Bichel, Gillespie & MacGill - then that further emphasises their plight. That you stoop to the level of dsr & Bheembhai with insult and sarcasm is disappointing mate. None of your options even mentioned opposition teams. I thought it reasonable to ask about that.

you can always start a poll on.. 1. why ponting always sucked in India and or 2. why warne has poor records against India. . but meanwhile these are the option you have on this poll.. just deal with it.. :D

[King]

Yes but back in the 90s and even as late as 01 IND weren't even able to beat ZIM.

I guess MP's explained it quite well.

[MundaPakistani]

Before the defeat last year PAK had stayed unbeaten in ENG for 24 years( 3 wins and 1 draw) so while taking nothing away from PAK it must also be said that the English team of the 90s was weaker than even this current English side.

[Gambit]

The number 1 reason has to be better fast bowlers. We've traditionally had a spin heavy attack which were put into operation the moment the ball lost it's shine. Even in the 90s, while Srinath was excellent and had decent partners in Prasad and MP, we never had a decent 3rd seamer. We either played two spinners or played a decent/mediocre 2nd seamer and a pathetic 3rd seamer. Now that we've got lots of decent pacers, we are doing well.

[King Tendulkar]

you can always start a poll on.. 1. why ponting always sucked in India and or 2. why warne has poor records against India. . but meanwhile these are the option you have on this poll.. just deal with it.. :D

:hysterical::hysterical:

[THX_1138]

we have not settled the openers issue once and for all, but certainly are not experimenting with tundlers and the local alter boy... notice that we began by doing well abroad starting from 2002 where sehwag, jaffer and bangar did quite well, then again in australia in 2003-2004 we had sehwag and ashish; and then again in south africa where jaffer and kartick did well and heck we would have won that final test had we not disturbed the opening combination in the second innings. makes a big difference. i remember the days of experiments with rathore, mongia, jadeja and even old timers like wv raman against the likes of caddick, gough, donald, reiffel, mcgrath, ambrose, walsh etc with absolutely no luck.

[talksport]

More Support from NRIs all over the world.....and more homely feeling Credit should be given to us fans as well