Lords test 2011 : Predictions and discussion

[Trichromatic]

I would have faith in my bowlers after seeing their performance and gone for 420+ target. Try to bat till tea and give bowlers 4 sessions to get Indian team all out.

[Kumar]

Im almost postiive we will have to bat through 4 sessions at the very least throughout the next few days meh, hell prob declare somewhere between 150-250 for the second innings

[zen]

get 200 quickly and declare .... If ind manage to get it, it was probably their day and could have got more too

[Karan114]

James Lawton: Arrogant tourists' refusal to embrace technology was nothing short of sabotage James Lawton: Arrogant tourists' refusal to embrace technology was nothing short of sabotage Saturday, 23 July 2011 If India had been an omelette rather than the world's No 1 cricket nation – at least for a few more weeks – they would surely have been sent straight back to the kitchen in the first desultory, rain-smeared action of the 2,000th Test match at Lord's. Critically undercooked in the field and at the bowling crease, they were so much less than what they might have been. However, their greatest disservice to the game they have so often adorned so brilliantly came before their captain M S Dhoni won the toss and promptly backed away from the challenge of pitting such batting titans as Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and V V S Laxman against the swing potential of Jimmy Anderson and Co. Right or wrong, Dhoni made a strategic decision. What India did, at the insistent advocacy of their captain, when arguing successfully against lbw verdicts under the Decision Review System, was nothing less than sabotage. It would have been bad enough if Dhoni's team had not so recently hastened the retirement of experienced Australian umpire Daryl Harper with a distasteful, though unfortunately not unprecedented, attack on official credibility following some debatable decisions in a Test match against the West Indians. That was a bullying performance which, ironically enough, perfectly illustrated the most important benefit of cricket's wider willingness to embrace technology. The Indians say that the predictive capacity of Hawk-Eye is less than infallible and, scientifically and practically, they may have a point. But then when you consider the weight of probabilities – and the certainty that without DRS cricket will inevitably see the return of the vice that so routinely dragged it into the sports gutter – the overwhelming reaction must be anger. Anger that a team which in the past has inflicted some of the most outrageous pressure on match officials – notably when Jamaica's Steve Bucknor was forced out of the 2008 series in Australia following the controversy of Harbhajan Singh's alleged racist remark to Andrew Symonds – has derailed a system which, while less than completely perfect, wiped away at the flick of a button some of cricket's worst ills. It was certainly one small blessing that, when Zaheer Khan was given the lbw against Alastair Cook on the first day at Lord's, it was a finely calculated but correct decision. Otherwise cue pressure on match officials, charges of bias and lament that if Hawk-Eye has a small margin of error in it, it is infinitely less than that of even the most accomplished and nerveless umpires. Before technology, there was a contagion of cheap and relentlessly cynical appealing. It was the open sore of cricket, the permanent assault on its old claim to be a game of manners and ultimate sportsmanship. That may always have been a myth, and certainly the great W G Grace did his best to dismantle it, but there has been no questions about the uplifting consequences of DRS. The new, swift arbitration succeeded in all but a dismissal of the claim that inevitably it undermined the authority of match officials. But what kind of authority is it that can be routinely exposed by the television camera? Bucknor and Harper, even they might agree, were capable of mistakes – huge, match-changing ones – and would they and their supporters really argue that some notional dignity is more important than the need to get the big decisions right as often as possible? Beyond this basic argument is the disturbing impression of the power of Indian cricket to inflict its will on every issue, every situation. If Dhoni had been speaking of an errant hotel porter in the West Indies instead of an umpire he might have been criticised for overweening arrogance. Dhoni said: "If the correct decisions had been made the game would have finished much earlier and I would have been in the hotel by now." Maybe he would have had someone running his bath, which at least would have given him a little more undisturbed time to consider the truth that he had just happened to overlook. The all-conquering Indians had been delayed by what they believed to be human error – the problem which DRS has so largely, so brilliantly, overcome. The Indian board claims that it has always "expressed a willingness to embrace technology for the good of the game". Yet no one is in doubt that from its rupee-pile of influence it set the ground rules for the current series. In all the debate over the future of Test cricket, whether it has the ability to retain the interest, even the love, of a majority of cricket fans, there should be one fundamental position. It is that every decision should be about shaping the future of a living, endlessly engaging force, rather than preserving some of the worst of its past. In the latter category there is doubt about the malevolent role of those who, without a shred of conscience, have sought to apply maximum pressure to the men in the white coats. For a little while such perversion of working justice was not merely checked but put into reverse. You could see it in the dwindling of a bowler's belief that he had the right to pursue every faint possibility that an umpire might be proved wrong. You could see it in the pensive expressions of captains anxious to hang on to their ability to challenge those decisions which were plainly outrageous. Whatever the Indians achieve in the next few days, nothing could exceed the value of a touch of humility – and competitive decency – in this matter so crucial to the game which in so many ways they have superbly enhanced. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/james-lawton-arrogant-tourists-refusal-to-embrace-technology-was-nothing-short-of-sabotage-2318950.html

[21cent]

Something along 350-400 should take care of this number 1 batting side:hysterical: Seriously though, How long do you guys think India can hold on to their ill-fated reign of the number one spot with such pathetic bowling and batting on lively tracks. Maybe they can designate India as number 1 in FTB rankings, and let England or SA take their rightful place as number one in the real format. :two_thumbs_up:

[daryl1985]

James Lawton: Arrogant tourists' refusal to embrace technology was nothing short of sabotage Saturday, 23 July 2011 If India had been an omelette rather than the world's No 1 cricket nation – at least for a few more weeks – they would surely have been sent straight back to the kitchen in the first desultory, rain-smeared action of the 2,000th Test match at Lord's. Critically undercooked in the field and at the bowling crease, they were so much less than what they might have been. However, their greatest disservice to the game they have so often adorned so brilliantly came before their captain M S Dhoni won the toss and promptly backed away from the challenge of pitting such batting titans as Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and V V S Laxman against the swing potential of Jimmy Anderson and Co. Right or wrong, Dhoni made a strategic decision. What India did, at the insistent advocacy of their captain, when arguing successfully against lbw verdicts under the Decision Review System, was nothing less than sabotage. It would have been bad enough if Dhoni's team had not so recently hastened the retirement of experienced Australian umpire Daryl Harper with a distasteful, though unfortunately not unprecedented, attack on official credibility following some debatable decisions in a Test match against the West Indians. That was a bullying performance which, ironically enough, perfectly illustrated the most important benefit of cricket's wider willingness to embrace technology. The Indians say that the predictive capacity of Hawk-Eye is less than infallible and, scientifically and practically, they may have a point. But then when you consider the weight of probabilities – and the certainty that without DRS cricket will inevitably see the return of the vice that so routinely dragged it into the sports gutter – the overwhelming reaction must be anger. Anger that a team which in the past has inflicted some of the most outrageous pressure on match officials – notably when Jamaica's Steve Bucknor was forced out of the 2008 series in Australia following the controversy of Harbhajan Singh's alleged racist remark to Andrew Symonds – has derailed a system which, while less than completely perfect, wiped away at the flick of a button some of cricket's worst ills. It was certainly one small blessing that, when Zaheer Khan was given the lbw against Alastair Cook on the first day at Lord's, it was a finely calculated but correct decision. Otherwise cue pressure on match officials, charges of bias and lament that if Hawk-Eye has a small margin of error in it, it is infinitely less than that of even the most accomplished and nerveless umpires. Before technology, there was a contagion of cheap and relentlessly cynical appealing. It was the open sore of cricket, the permanent assault on its old claim to be a game of manners and ultimate sportsmanship. That may always have been a myth, and certainly the great W G Grace did his best to dismantle it, but there has been no questions about the uplifting consequences of DRS. The new, swift arbitration succeeded in all but a dismissal of the claim that inevitably it undermined the authority of match officials. But what kind of authority is it that can be routinely exposed by the television camera? Bucknor and Harper, even they might agree, were capable of mistakes – huge, match-changing ones – and would they and their supporters really argue that some notional dignity is more important than the need to get the big decisions right as often as possible? Beyond this basic argument is the disturbing impression of the power of Indian cricket to inflict its will on every issue, every situation. If Dhoni had been speaking of an errant hotel porter in the West Indies instead of an umpire he might have been criticised for overweening arrogance. Dhoni said: "If the correct decisions had been made the game would have finished much earlier and I would have been in the hotel by now." Maybe he would have had someone running his bath, which at least would have given him a little more undisturbed time to consider the truth that he had just happened to overlook. The all-conquering Indians had been delayed by what they believed to be human error – the problem which DRS has so largely, so brilliantly, overcome. The Indian board claims that it has always "expressed a willingness to embrace technology for the good of the game". Yet no one is in doubt that from its rupee-pile of influence it set the ground rules for the current series. In all the debate over the future of Test cricket, whether it has the ability to retain the interest, even the love, of a majority of cricket fans, there should be one fundamental position. It is that every decision should be about shaping the future of a living, endlessly engaging force, rather than preserving some of the worst of its past. In the latter category there is doubt about the malevolent role of those who, without a shred of conscience, have sought to apply maximum pressure to the men in the white coats. For a little while such perversion of working justice was not merely checked but put into reverse. You could see it in the dwindling of a bowler's belief that he had the right to pursue every faint possibility that an umpire might be proved wrong. You could see it in the pensive expressions of captains anxious to hang on to their ability to challenge those decisions which were plainly outrageous. Whatever the Indians achieve in the next few days, nothing could exceed the value of a touch of humility – and competitive decency – in this matter so crucial to the game which in so many ways they have superbly enhanced. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/james-lawton-arrogant-tourists-refusal-to-embrace-technology-was-nothing-short-of-sabotage-2318950.html

Is he trying to mock Dhoni for choosing to bowl 1st. If he is this is ridiculous cos i'm pretty sure Andrew Strauss would have backed away from pitting his strong batting line-up against a couple of dibbly dobblers like Zaheer and PK.

[daryl1985]

Something along 350-400 should take care of this number 1 batting side:hysterical: Seriously though, How long do you guys think India can hold on to their ill-fated reign of the number one spot with such pathetic bowling and batting on lively tracks. Maybe they can designate India as number 1 in FTB rankings, and let England or SA take their rightful place as number one in the real format. :two_thumbs_up:

Haha, are you serious? Who do you support?

[The Realist]

Is that what passes for journalism thesedays? So much blind irrational hate and devoid of any sense of rationality. From a country that produces and reads utter crap like the Sun and News of the World why am I not suprised. Throw it back in the gutter where it and the author belong.

[Karan114]

Haha' date=' are you serious? Who do you support?[/quote'] He is a Sri Lankan troll who will crawl back into his hole once India is doing well in the series.

[wobblydoggy]

England take control A good day for England. India had the best of the conditions in day 1 and 2, but failed to take England's wickets. Day three and with the sun shining, England bowl India out. What is even worse for India is that two of Englands bowlers bowled well below their best. This does not bode well for India, personally I think England are the coming team. We will see over the next few days

[Guest Gunner]

A good day for England. India had the best of the conditions in day 1 and 2, but failed to take England's wickets. Day three and with the sun shining, England bowl India out. What is even worse for India is that two of Englands bowlers bowled well below their best. This does not bode well for India, personally I think England are the coming team. We will see over the next few days

I think England played as well as they could and India played as poorly as they could have. I wouldn't personally start ordering the champagne bottles and confetti just yet.

[surajmal]

a raging alcoholic or a drunk rageoholic? I can't tell.

[wobblydoggy]

I think under pressure, the indian batting order will wilt in 120 overs max so iam already leading by 188. and i have 180 overs at my disposal. i will bat for 60 overs at 3.5 = 210 so i will give a target of 400 at 120 overs. ============ mods i think this thread deserves to stay

I think you are wrong. England still have overs being made up from day 1, so I think, but I may not be right. I think England will aim for 300 to add to their first innings score

[daryl1985]

A good day for England. India had the best of the conditions in day 1 and 2, but failed to take England's wickets. Day three and with the sun shining, England bowl India out. What is even worse for India is that two of Englands bowlers bowled well below their best. This does not bode well for India, personally I think England are the coming team. We will see over the next few days

Agreed India had the better bowling conditions on day 1. However, i thought the batting conditions were better for England on day 2. The sun barely shone today. It seemed cloudy for most of the day. Also 3 of India's best batsman batted well below their best today. Granted, they will bat in tougher conditions tomorrow or on Monday.

[wobblydoggy]

I think England played as well as they could and India played as poorly as they could have. I wouldn't personally start ordering the champagne bottles and confetti just yet.

Rubbish Anderson bowled well below par and Tremlett was well below his best

[Guest Gunner]

Look the british media is going to stick it to the Indians as much as they can. They have just learnt these tricks from the Oz media and will carry on the proud tradition of red top newspapers eventhough this article has appeared in the Independent. I would just ignore all this drivel and focus on the games to be played as England will try to pressurise India in every way they can.

[Guest Gunner]

Rubbish Anderson bowled well below par and Tremlett was well below his best

If you have watched test cricket long enough you should know by now that all 11 players are not going to turn in top performances every game. I could also counter by saying India was a bowler short and without our star opener.

[Rajiv]

Was he working for NOTW? or the brits miss sensationalism

[surajmal]

A good day for England. India had the best of the conditions in day 1 and 2, but failed to take England's wickets. Day three and with the sun shining, England bowl India out. What is even worse for India is that two of Englands bowlers bowled well below their best. This does not bode well for India, personally I think England are the coming team. We will see over the next few days

Indians like to give opponents a head start in each away series. Its because, as the big brother of cricket, they feel, its their responsibility to let others teams feel that they belong. Don't fret though, Indians will be leaving with the trophy regardless.

[Rajiv]

Aren't the fans used the India's 1st test performance. Mocked, humiliated - commies will bark, padosis, outsiders, nazis, whites will all jump in 2 gives their 2 cents. How can India we no.1, boo to you, etc etc Can we just watch the game