India’s 2-1 win in Australia is not the best triumph overseas, feels Sanjay Manjrekar

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

1986 England series win followed by this series  are no1 and no2.

 

The 1986 England team had only one good player in David Gower.  (   Gooch would go on to become a top player only later in his career,  he was very average till the mid 80s, in the first part of his career  ).

 

And they had little known seamers like Richard Ellison, Norman Cowans and Neal Radford bowling for them in that series.  Derek Pringle had to bat in the middle order.

 

Moreover,  England did not have the reputation of being a tough cricket team, who can or could compete even with ordinary resources.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by express bowling

[Gollum]

4 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

He scored a 155* in the first innings and he struck a couple of fours in the final over off of Mcgrath in the offside that were majestic. We only needed 230 to chase and if he got going the next morning, we could have won it.

We could have won, but we were massive underdogs...that's all I am saying.

 

Next year in Bangalore, Viru got 201 in the 1st innings, then with a superior (+ SRT, Gambhir) and in form batting unit we collapsed on the final day (overnight 25/0) against a raddi Pakistani bowling attack to gift padosis a drawn series. 4th innings chases are tricky man, rarest of the rare against great bowling attacks and that Aussie bowling attack was 'great' applying every definition of the word. 

[Real McCoy]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

We could have won, but we were massive underdogs...that's all I am saying.

 

Next year in Bangalore, Viru got 201 in the 1st innings, then with a superior (+ SRT, Gambhir) and in form batting unit we collapsed on the final day (overnight 25/0) against a raddi Pakistani bowling attack to gift padosis a drawn series. 4th innings chases are tricky man, rarest of the rare against great bowling attacks and that Aussie bowling attack was 'great' applying every definition of the word. 

But Chennai is our lucky ground for us and Bangalore was not. My impression was that Sehwag would have torn them a new one and turned the series in our side. It was not to be

[Gollum]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

The 1986 England team had only one good player in David Gower.  (   Gooch would go on to become a top player only later in his career,  he was very average till the mid 80s, in the first part of his career  ).

Moreover that 1986 England team was in a bad frame of mind after being brutalized, manhandled, broken by WI just a few months ago. They lost the will to fight by the time India arrived. Then NZ too arrived and beat them in the test series. It is impossible to rate 1986 above 1971. 

[putrevus]

24 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

The 1986 England team had only one good player in David Gower.  (   Gooch would go on to become a top player only later in his career,  he was very average till the mid 80s, in the first part of his career  ).

 

And they had little known seamers like Richard Ellison, Norman Cowans and Neal Radford bowling for them in that series.  Derek Pringle had to bat in the middle order.

 

Moreover,  England did not have the reputation of being a tough cricket team, who can or could compete even with ordinary resources.

 

 

 

 

 

Gooch was a very good player by then already, he scored a very good hundred in first test.He had three year suspension for touring SA in 1982. Gooch's stats would have been far greater if he did not miss those three years due to suspension.

They had what you call English attack , much like Indian attack for that series and it was early part of English summer cold and very good for swing bowlers.

This Australian team is also not tough by any means especially batting.Our batting has been horrible if not for Pujara who knows what would have happened. 

 

1986 was not like that India dominated them in all facets and they did not have the drive to for 3-0 .Gavaskar as usual would not chase any total by batting too slow.

Edited January 10, 2019 by putrevus

[Straight Drive]

20 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Moreover that 1986 England team was in a bad frame of mind after being brutalized, manhandled, broken by WI just a few months ago. They lost the will to fight by the time India arrived. Then NZ too arrived and beat them in the test series. It is impossible to rate 1986 above 1971. 

More importantly we did not have Pataudi as well who was a senior cricketer then. The Indian batting line up was poor. Sunny papered over all the cracks. Abid Ali was opening bowler and he also opened in some matches. That was our first test series win in WI and due to other challenges we had to take 30 wickets to win tests those times while on tours due to blatant partiality shown by umpires. 

 

This Australian tour did not have Warner, Smith. Starc and other have looked bad in absence of swing after ball tampering bans. The bowling averages of those bowlers since ban has been poor.

 

In 1971 we have to give credit because we could only win against what we faced, and similarly this year too. Who the opponents are is not our problem in every series we win. I rate 197 best as it was the first overseas win i watched and i am a fan of Sunny. Also, it being our first win in WI against WI , i rate it highly.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Straight Drive

[Gollum]

25 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

More importantly we did not have Pataudi as well who was a senior cricketer then. The Indian batting line up was poor. Sunny papered over all the cracks. Abid Ali was opening bowler and he also opened in some matches. That was our first test series win in WI and due to other challenges we had to take 30 wickets to win tests those times while on tours due to blatant partiality shown by umpires. 

Wadekar got lucky, the squad personnel and style of play were formulated by Pataudi and he missed out. Later when Wadekar couldn't deliver MAK was brought back as skipper for that famous 1974-75 series against WI. Selectors said they would give him captaincy on test by test basis, Pataudi said he would take the role only if he was given responsibility for the entire series. His 36 in Eden (GRV's matchwinning 139 with 25 boundaries, Roberts doffed his hat, Lloyd had 6 slips+gullies and a 3rd man to stop his ferocious late cut) carrying an injury is talked about till this day by the groundsmen, 6 4s off Vanburn Holder in a space of 10 balls and none of them were visible to the crowd, pure timing. Series should have been 2-2 draw but those days deciders went to 6 days and we lost in Mumbai on 6th day.

 

Talking about the 1971 WI tour, can't forget Dilip Sardesai's role. He was specifically recalled for the experience factor and had a monster series. 

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Gollum

[Straight Drive]

27 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Wadekar got lucky, the squad personnel and style of play were formulated by Pataudi and he missed out. Later when Wadekar couldn't deliver MAK was brought back as skipper for that famous 1974-75 series against WI. Selectors said they would give him captaincy on test by test basis, Pataudi said he would take the role only if he was given responsibility for the entire series. His 36 in Eden (GRV's matchwinning 139 with 25 boundaries, Roberts doffed his hat, Lloyd had 6 slips+gullies and a 3rd man to stop his ferocious late cut) carrying an injury is talked about till this day by the groundsmen, 6 4s off Vanburn Holder in a space of 10 balls and none of them were visible to the crowd, pure timing. Series should have been 2-2 draw but those days deciders went to 6 days and we lost in Mumbai on 6th day.

 

Talking about the 1971 WI tour, can't forget Dilip Sardesai's role. He was specifically recalled for the experience factor and had a monster series. 

 

Pataudi played with eyesight in one eye.. left one. To average 36 with such limitation is incredible. Now test cricketers even with full eye sight fail to average even as much as he did. I guess people with those limitations are now playing cricket tournaments for differently abled. The fact that he played in normal one even is indeed great. Now people get retired hurt.  He was almost like retired hurt throughout entire career but he played. His presence was wonderful and motivating for other cricketers.

 

Yeah i very well remember the test in 1973 which you mention. Abid Ali kept wickets in one match when Farooq got injured after scoring the ton and let Abid kept wickets in second innings.  He was a true multiskilled cricketer who opened bowling, batting and keeping although not with much great impact apart .Abid Ali could move the ball both ways, and he could open as makeshift opener. Also he scored runs quickest along with Farokh Engineer who too was an attacking cricketer we had in those times. Abid Ali opening the bowling and batting was bit too much though which shows how we lacked in resources. Though not the best of all-rounders a utility cricketer in those days.

 

Dilip Sardesai was incredible in that series as you mentioned. He supported Sunny well. He was also a important player in that historic series win.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Straight Drive

[coffee_rules]

Meanwhile his man-crush tweets...

 

 

 

[putrevus]

1 hour ago, Straight Drive said:

Pataudi played with eyesight in one eye.. left one. To average 36 with such limitation is incredible. Now test cricketers even with full eye sight fail to average even as much as he did. I guess people with those limitations are now playing cricket tournaments for differently abled. The fact that he played in normal one even is indeed great. Now people get retired hurt.  He was almost like retired hurt throughout entire career but he played. His presence was wonderful and motivating for other cricketers.

 

Yeah i very well remember the test in 1973 which you mention. Abid Ali kept wickets in one match when Farooq got injured after scoring the ton and let Abid kept wickets in second innings.  He was a true multiskilled cricketer who opened bowling, batting and keeping although not with much great impact apart .Abid Ali could move the ball both ways, and he could open as makeshift opener. Also he scored runs quickest along with Farokh Engineer who too was an attacking cricketer we had in those times. Abid Ali opening the bowling and batting was bit too much though which shows how we lacked in resources. Though not the best of all-rounders a utility cricketer in those days.

 

Dilip Sardesai was incredible in that series as you mentioned. He supported Sunny well. He was also a important player in that historic series win.

Nothing against Patuadi but it showed what kind of selection process we had, one eyed player captaining country is just ridiculous.If he was some ordinary joe he would not even sniff Ranji trophy let alone become captain of India.Let us not make Pataudi into some warrior.

 

Cricket was an elite sport then.India has too much talent for sport/power to remain in so few hands.

 

[Straight Drive]

28 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Nothing against Patuadi but it showed what kind of selection process we had, one eyed player captaining country is just ridiculous.If he was some ordinary joe he would not even sniff Ranji trophy let alone become captain of India.Let us not make Pataudi into some warrior.

 

Cricket was an elite sport then.India has too much talent for sport/power to remain in so few hands.

 

Pataudi played for Sussex as teenager and Hyderabad in Ranji trophy later. He met with car accident due to which a glass damaged his eye permanently after having played FC cricket. Within less than year of this accident he made debut at 21 and got test captaincy after few matches. There is no selection goofup as he showed he averaged 34. Chetan Chauhan averages 31. There are many others in that era who averaged less than that. Jayantilal, Rusi Surti, Jaisimha too iirc .Even today there are players with that average in Indian team like Rahul 34. Those times we had less players who could average higher so it wasn't like blunder selection. Sunny at 54 was way above others. He also won us first ever test series overseas against  NZ in NZ. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Straight Drive

[express bowling]

10 hours ago, putrevus said:

Gooch was a very good player by then already, he scored a very good hundred in first test.He had three year suspension for touring SA in 1982. Gooch's stats would have been far greater if he did not miss those three years due to suspension.

They had what you call English attack , much like Indian attack for that series and it was early part of English summer cold and very good for swing bowlers.

This Australian team is also not tough by any means especially batting.Our batting has been horrible if not for Pujara who knows what would have happened. 

 

1986 was not like that India dominated them in all facets and they did not have the drive to for 3-0 .Gavaskar as usual would not chase any total by batting too slow.

 

I distinctly remember that,  that English Team was in total disarray in 1986. Heavy losses to the WI affected them a lot. They kept changing players and lacked either quality or confidence.

 

This Australian test team has a very settled, quick and good quality bowling attack ... so, at least one aspect is quality.

 

Moreover ... Aussies are always a mentally tougher team.  They are in cricket what Germany are in football.  And England are in cricket what England are in football.  

 

[rkt.india]

19 hours ago, Gollum said:

In the year 1971, England was the number 1 ranked side in the world. How often does a number 1 ranked side lose at home, that too against a team from polar opposite conditions... SENAW in Asia or Asian teams in SENAW?

 

I can't recall any other instance of India beating a top ranked side away from home, these are our prominent away victories (don't rate wins against Bangla, Zim and minnow SLanka of 80s and early 90s)

NZ 1967...rank minnows yet special in its own way cos history created

WI 1971...England was no 1

Eng 1971 against number 1 side 

Eng 1985...mid tier team, ATG WI clear no 1

Pak 2004...ATG Aus no 1

WI 2006...ATG Aus no 1

Eng 2007...ATG Aus no 1

NZ 2009...India no 1

WI 2011/16...India no 1

SL 2015...RSA no 1

Aus 2018...India no 1

 

Those harping on about strengths of teams, that England team had Boycott (England Great), Knott (ATG), Edrich (EG), Dennis Amiss (EG), John Snow (EG), Underwood (ATG) besides some very capable players like Basil D'Oliveira, Illingworth and Keith Fletcher. If 2018-19 Australia was history created, so was 1971 England because we were the first Asian team to win a series there. In fact before 1971 our record there was dismal, P 19, W 0, L 15, D 4....that's right, ZERO test wins in England and just managing to draw every 5th test.

 

Add to the fact that the sport was run by the dictatorial and racist, supremacist Poms those days (Imperial Cricket Council) and we (applies to non-Aus/Eng, especially brown and black folk of the Commonwealth) were second class people with a piss poor and impotent cricket board, only worthy to be laughed and scorned at by the white masters. That victory was historical in more ways than one, our first overseas triumph against former colonial masters, similar to 1948 London Olympics field hockey but even more special because of the status of cricket in England and our miserable on field achievements/reputation in cricket compared to hockey. 

You can't say polar conditions because spinners rules in that series which conditions were spin friendly. 

 

Regarding rankings, they don't matter when you play overseas. We were #1 in 2011, got blanked 4-0 in England then 4-0 in Australia.

Edited January 11, 2019 by rkt.india

[rkt.india]

21 hours ago, R!TTER said:

Abey bin pende ke, did you see their records in SA? We did bat better but cricket isn't a linear progression nor is it a 0 sum game -

 

Lets's say 0 is par, we had +5 batting & +5 bowling

They had -5 batting & +2 bowling

The difference is 10 in batting & 3 in bowling, it reflects disproportionately because we won the key moments & were generally competitive in all sessions!

 

On the one hand you overhype this Aus attack as better than anything we've faced in the past, except 2k, & on the other hand you say we batted so much better they were rendered impotent? Are you right in the head or what, if these guys don't have the numbers to back them up what does that say about your theory?

What numbers do you want? Cummins averages 23, Hazlewood 26, Starc 28. This is better than any Aussie pace attack we have faced after 1999. What they did in SA doesn't matter because it was away. Why are you bringing away series in the discussion? 

[Gollum]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

You can't say polar conditions because spinners rules in that series which conditions were spin friendly. 

 

Regarding rankings, they don't matter when you play overseas. We were #1 in 2011, got blanked 4-0 in England then 4-0 in Australia.

You got my point wrong. I said how many times have number 1 sides lost at home, that too against opponents from different conditions.

 

Has India ever lost a series at home when it was no 1? 

[Vijy]

11 hours ago, Gollum said:

You got my point wrong. I said how many times have number 1 sides lost at home, that too against opponents from different conditions.

 

Has India ever lost a series at home when it was no 1?  

we weren't no. 1 I think (?), but I will always remember how cook and co. plundered that victory some yrs ago.

[Gollum]

14 minutes ago, Vijy said:

we weren't no. 1 I think (?), but I will always remember how cook and co. plundered that victory some yrs ago.

We were far from no 1 bro, that 0-8 miracle happened the previous year, sab Dhoni maharaj ki kripa hai , 80 saal ke Indian cricket history aur legacy ki band baja di lodu maharaj ne. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Gollum

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

We were far from no 1 bro, that 0-8 miracle happened the previous year, sab Dhoni maharaj ki kripa hai , 80 saal ki Indian cricket history ki band baja di lavde maharaj ne. 

we were certainly far from no. 1 in terms of actual performances, but I had been wondering about what the formal ranking was - I know it wasn't no.1 because of the great 0-8 we "achieved", as you noted.

 

however, still losing at home to eng will remain a perpetual sore spot, even though eng had a top-notch batting lineup as well as the swann/panesar combination at their near-best.

[Gollum]

Just now, Vijy said:

we were certainly far from no. 1 in terms of actual performances, but I had been wondering about what the formal ranking was - I know it wasn't no.1 because of the great 0-8 we "achieved", as you noted.

 

however, still losing at home to eng will remain a perpetual sore spot, even though eng had a top-notch batting lineup as well as the swann/panesar combination at their near-best.

IIRC coming to that series we were 6th ranked behind Eng, RSA, Aus, Pak and SL. 

[Gollum]

@Vijy this might be of some use LINK

 

I haven't verified it and it seems to stop at 2015-16. But it is the closest to giving us some picture about historical team rankings. Historical player rankings are available HERE

Edited January 11, 2019 by Gollum