Arrogance of English Think Tank.

[rkt.india]

As expected Ind hammered Eng in Ahmedabad. Cook,Swann and Prior aside Eng were a joke. One thing that sticks out from the game was English team selection. It smacked of arrogance Eng picking three seamers(two of them are suited to English conditions) and only one spinner. It was like Ind or Pakistan picking 2 spinners on a green wicket in Eng. Their bowlers bowled English lengths and were carted around. To me this was unbelievable because Eng were supposed to be fully prepared after getting humiliated in UAE early in the year. Now looking at the reasons behind this approach I think they were arrogant in thinking their brand of cricket will help them in sub-cont. All conquering AUS use to play two spinners Asia because it was needed despite having likes of McGrath, Gillespie and Lee and here Eng played Bresnan ahead of Monty. Why?? Discuss.

You cannot win against India in India with spinners. Your fast bowlers need to take wickets. Aussie bneaten us in 2004 because their fast bowlers did the job. Even Srilanka having Murli could not win a test here. So its the fast bowlers who will win them agaisnt not spinners. England's fast bowlers' butts need to be kicked. They did not show the heart and courage to bowl quick in first test. Finn could have made a difference. Now they will have to play Stuart Meaker who can bowl quick and will be handy with the old ball.

[Utalk]

As expected Ind hammered Eng in Ahmedabad. Cook,Swann and Prior aside Eng were a joke. One thing that sticks out from the game was English team selection. It smacked of arrogance Eng picking three seamers(two of them are suited to English conditions) and only one spinner. It was like Ind or Pakistan picking 2 spinners on a green wicket in Eng. Their bowlers bowled English lengths and were carted around. To me this was unbelievable because Eng were supposed to be fully prepared after getting humiliated in UAE early in the year. Now looking at the reasons behind this approach I think they were arrogant in thinking their brand of cricket will help them in sub-cont. All conquering AUS use to play two spinners Asia because it was needed despite having likes of McGrath, Gillespie and Lee and here Eng played Bresnan ahead of Monty. Why?? Discuss.

[veer]

They had Samit Patel as the second spinner though... I think they went with Ozzie approach.. they also came in the game with three pace bowlers + 1 spinner the last time around.

[Old guy]

these three seamers destroyed india in england also finn would have been in place of bresnan there strategy was to go with 3 pacers...which is wrong..also bowlers sucked..should accept this..zack bowled so beautifully.. think of it this way they let a rookie score 200 against them snd humiliate them like nothing..yes he is good but i think its more in mind even if monty comes in it wont make a difference they dont believe they can win here...then sehwag played a blinder after tht they always stayed behind its like there horrors came to life..now only brilliance from kp can chsnge momentum..other wise they are gonna lose by big margin in coming games

[Utalk]

Three seamers plan won't work with Ando and Bresnan making 2/3 of the trio. Plus they were bowling wrong lengths. To me watching Yadav bowl with old ball was refreshing. This kid will be a special bowler if looked after properly.

[Old guy]

yes he is..and for a change they are taking good care of him also anderson is not the problem ..broad is....

[Crookbond]

I don't think they were arrogant but were coaxed into taking that decision. Playing Monty Panesar would have lengthened the tail and on the sub continent even the tail can contribute crucial runs. They felt Samit Patel could at least hold up one end if not pick wickets which he could not. In retrospect though, the issue was Broad-Anderson-Bresnan attack. Not only was the attack listless but it lacked any penetration whatsoever. Yadav and Zaheer out performed the English trio bowlers and once England were shot out for a low score in the first innings - it was game & set for India.

[SLICKR392]

They picked their players on the basis of their performance in the Warm ups where Samit Patel batted and bowled better than Botham. Bresnan was the best seamer for them in the warm ups. Panesar did fine but they probably went with the Swann-Panesar jinx myth. Broad did nothing to deserve a spot neither did Bell.

[Utalk]

They picked their players on the basis of their performance in the Warm ups where Samit Patel batted and bowled better than Botham. Bresnan was the best seamer for them in the warm ups. Panesar did fine but they probably went with the Swann-Panesar jinx myth. Broad did nothing to deserve a spot neither did Bell.

Warm ups meant nothing. They hardly faced any quality spin or top reserve batsmen.

[Old guy]

Warm ups meant nothing. They hardly faced any quality spin or top reserve batsmen.

pujara was there..scored 87 monty was best bowler there and troubled him i think

[kabira]

England got 3 practice games. Now who gets so many practice games these days, plus there was no rain, so they got full practice out it. Also Ahmedabad pitch was not that bad...It got slower and batting was easier. But their mindset lets them down. Luckily, Cook took full advantage of umpiring decision, else this was big innings defeat.

[CoverDrive]

Mediocre spin bowlers in India really suffer - no way Samit Patel was going to be effective - remember 2008 when Australia started with Cameron White as their spinner (LoL) Well Monty and Swann will still be a very good attack and expect them to bowl well. It will be about who bats well against spinners.

[rkt.india]

You cannot win against India in India with spinners. Your fast bowlers need to take wickets. Aussie bneaten us in 2004 because their fast bowlers did the job. Even Srilanka having Murli could not win a test here. So its the fast bowlers who will win them agaisnt not spinners. England's fast bowlers' butts need to be kicked. They did not show the heart and courage to bowl quick in first test. Finn could have made a difference. Now they will have to play Stuart Meaker who can bowl quick and will be handy with the old ball.

[rkt.india]

Mediocre spin bowlers in India really suffer - no way Samit Patel was going to be effective - remember 2008 when Australia started with Cameron White as their spinner (LoL) Well Monty and Swann will still be a very good attack and expect them to bowl well. It will be about who bats well against spinners.

what are you talking about even Warne and Murli have suffered in India.

[carnish]

You cannot win against India in India with spinners. Your fast bowlers need to take wickets. Aussie bneaten us in 2004 because their fast bowlers did the job. Even Srilanka having Murli could not win a test here. So its the fast bowlers who will win them agaisnt not spinners. England's fast bowlers' butts need to be kicked. They did not show the heart and courage to bowl quick in first test. Finn could have made a difference. Now they will have to play Stuart Meaker who can bowl quick and will be handy with the old ball.

Yes, their pacers need to sock up but then again we cannot underestimate swann and Panesar too especially after what swann did in the first test. The batters have to look out for swann as he can produce gems of deliveries and is in a good shape with the confidence performance in the first test. I also am aware of Monty's threat as he has been someone who has in the past troubled Sachin and in anyone the trajectory he bowls, it will be difficult to score easily of him. So those two bowling in tandem can easily pile on the pressure on Indian batters. Underestimating the English spinners on turners would be a big mistake.

[Tridibans_16]

How come Utalk's opening post is showing second after rkt.'s :giggle:

[Trundler27]

the current state of international test cricket is refreshing and lends itself to some parity as most travelling teams have major weaknesses while being juggernauts at home. It's not about arrogance or attitude imo because no international team seems to have the talent level akin to that possessed by the Aussies in the 90's and 2000's. Hence we will likely see most away teams get soundly beaten and/or dominated by top tier home teams. Whichever team starts travelling well (in terms of winning away) would be the team that comes out on top in this battle for the mace! India certainly is not in the running for that yet with our fragile batting line-up and non-existent bowling attack. Hopefully our selection committee is working towards building such a talent pool.

[carnish]

How come Utalk's opening post is showing second after rkt.'s :giggle:

This site is having issues ... even the times are showing wrong. Someone's gotta fix it all up quick.

[someone]

Lol at the arrogance. Need to get some facts rights. Firstly, just having a spinner does not mean he will be good. Now, add to that, Panaser has a poor average (>60) in SC. Thus, really enough reasons to drop him.

[Utalk]

Lol at the arrogance. Need to get some facts rights. Firstly' date=' just having a spinner does not mean he will be good. Now, add to that, Panaser has a poor average (>60) in SC. Thus, really enough reasons to drop him.[/quote'] England,s best bowler was a spinner. May be they should have left him out because Warne and Murali struggled in India. Playing three seamer on that surface was idiotic if they were not arrogant. Bresnan playing a test in India now that's ludicrous.