Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

I'd believe that. Good luck to him.

Dr Cricket wrote:As a group India bowling attack was better although it was only marginally better so were not able to compensate the lack of runs as a group the India batsman were not able to provide.

It wasnt better for me

The gap was much closer than normal but India's bowlers still aren't as good in English conditions

They were helped by the whole of England's top 6 being woefully out of form

If India's bowling was as good as everyone seems to think then Sam Curran and Jos buttler wouldn't have scored as as any runs as they did, the bowlers consistent failure to knock over the last 4 wickets in Englands innings was a major factor in England winning the series

backfootpunch wrote:

Dr Cricket wrote:As a group India bowling attack was better although it was only marginally better so were not able to compensate the lack of runs as a group the India batsman were not able to provide.

It wasnt better for me

The gap was much closer than normal but India's bowlers still aren't as good in English conditions

They were helped by the whole of England's top 6 being woefully out of form

If India's bowling was as good as everyone seems to think then Sam Curran and Jos buttler wouldn't have scored as as any runs as they did, the bowlers consistent failure to knock over the last 4 wickets in Englands innings was a major factor in England winning the series

Chris Woakes has a better FC average than England's opening bat and 10 FC 100s, Rashid is only about 1 run away and with 10 FC hundreds, Curran averages about 30 and is a 20 year old with 13 FC 50s already. Broad has a test 173 and 25 FC 50s.... Bumrah, best FC score 16. Sharma, best 31 (in 87 tests). Shami, one 50 in FC games in a lot of seasons. Not sure we are comparing like for like. If the Indians had the luxury of a 4 man tail to bowl to, averging a combined score of the English 10, then you will see a different result.

Dont think you can call it. Both bowling units dominated the series to large extents.

best not to mention the Broad 173

From the bits that I watched of this series, it seemed an evenly fought contest, but not the highest quality on display. I thought some of the batting was very poor and that in many cases the bowlers did not have to much luck. The catching from both teams at times was poor. With better fielding those poor batting averages in this series would have been even worse.

Even so it was a contest that seemed much closer than the 4-1 scoreline and it was a highly entertaining series mainly due to the lack of decent batting from either side. Credit to the bowlers, or poor batting?

yuppie wrote:From the bits that I watched of this series, it seemed an evenly fought contest, but not the highest quality on display. I thought some of the batting was very poor and that in many cases the bowlers did not have to much luck. The catching from both teams at times was poor. With better fielding those poor batting averages in this series would have been even worse.

Even so it was a contest that seemed much closer than the 4-1 scoreline and it was a highly entertaining series mainly due to the lack of decent batting from either side. Credit to the bowlers, or poor batting?

Bit of both, I think. Some batsmen showed that it was possible to score runs on most of the pitches with application and a little luck. But no-one, not even Kohli, scored consistently.

I've just noted another little stat titbit. c Cook b Anderson was already the most common bowler/outfielder combination for England, but when Cook caught Rahane off Anderson at the Oval, that moved the pairing up to number 5 in the all-time list, with 40 dismissals effected that way.

The top 3 unsurprisingly involve the three bowlers still ahead of Anderson in the wicket-taking stakes and their respective first or second slip fielders, but number 4 is c Dravid b H Singh, which I thought was interesting. 8 of the top ten involve a spinner/slip-fielder combination - the only other quick/slip combination is c Kallis b Ntini at number 10, with 35 dismissals.
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statisti ... Bowler.asp

For England, the second place, predictably enough, goes to c Cook b Broad...

Warne dominating that top ten.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Warne dominating that top ten.

Interesting that he had some of the best catches in the game there. Taylor, Waugh, Ponting, Hayden.

yuppie wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Warne dominating that top ten.

Interesting that he had some of the best catches in the game there. Taylor, Waugh, Ponting, Hayden.

Just goes to show the consistency in selection and longevity in that excellent Australian side. Murali had more wickets, but apart from Sanga/Jaya, the rest of his fielders chopped and changed a lot more as SL struggled to find batsmen.

Warnes record was certainly helped by having such great fielders around him. Seeing some of the dropped catches in recent series, you have to feel for the bowlers.

The younger Ricky Pointing was arguably the best fielder of my lifetime. Rhodes was all backward point, throwing himself at everything and occasionally pulling a blinder....

Ricky fielded everywhere. Exceptional in cover ring on the off, great under the helmet in close (one of the best) and I vaguely remember a game he replaced one of the ageing three (warne, tugger or Waugh) in the cordon to much controversy when he was new in the team, then he pulled off some worldie at third slip......all round, I don't think I've seen someone who competes.

England have had some good fielders in recent times. Strauss was great, stokes is exceptional, Collingwood was for a time the best in the business.... Ian bell was also a dream at short leg

For me Collingwood and Bell have probably been the best English fielders i have witnessed.

For Aus, depending on the day it changes a lot. Symonds was amazing and could field anywhere. He had a great arm as well on the occasion when he fielded in the deep. Border as well was something else. He seemed to change fielding with his run outs and some of his catching was also amazing. M Waugh was freakish, and as you say Ponting could field anywhere. Taylor was remarkable in slips as to could be Hayden and Warne. A lot of those players seemed to play at the same time, so i do wonder if i see them slightly differently to the current lot.

Roher Harper had big hands, and was agile. The Gooch run-out was probably the best piece of fielding I have seen.

sussexpob wrote:The younger Ricky Pointing was arguably the best fielder of my lifetime. Rhodes was all backward point, throwing himself at everything and occasionally pulling a blinder....

Ricky fielded everywhere. Exceptional in cover ring on the off, great under the helmet in close (one of the best) and I vaguely remember a game he replaced one of the ageing three (warne, tugger or Waugh) in the cordon to much controversy when he was new in the team, then he pulled off some worldie at third slip......all round, I don't think I've seen someone who competes.

England have had some good fielders in recent times. Strauss was great, stokes is exceptional, Collingwood was for a time the best in the business.... Ian bell was also a dream at short leg

Him and de villiers are the two stand outs that I have seen

Maybe graeme Smith as a slipper and Andrew symonds as an outfielder but those two by far the best all round fielders

Gibbs was pretty good too