Draw @ 2.04 on
Betfair now
Was looking on the
Betfair forum earlier which is generally a load of people talking rubbish, but there are some decent thinkers as well. One of them referred to this on Cricinfo, which makes extremely interesting reading regarding the Indian big boys in the middle order:
This is a batting order that has long lived on reputation; three years, to be precise. Not since the tour of Pakistan in early 2004 has India's middle order earned the right to be termed mighty.
Let's dispense with the numbers first. In Test matches since that series, Sachin Tendulkar averages 45.67, Sourav Ganguly 36.24 and VVS Laxman 33.70. But even these numbers hide the reality for none them has failed to cash in on weak opponents. Three of Tendulkar's last four hundreds - including a career-best 248 - have come against Bangladesh, Ganguly has scored hundreds against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, his only centuries since a stirring 144 against Australia at Brisbane in 2003, and Laxman has got a hundred against Zimbabwe. Remove these runs and the story is dire. Tendulkar's average dips to 31.19, Ganguly's to 29.40 and Laxman's to 32.19.
Increasingly it looks likely that this is what India's once-glittering middle order is capable of providing in demanding conditions: battling thirties and the odd half-century. That's what Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly provided at Lord's and that's what they did against Australia, Pakistan and South Africa in 2004-05, and against South Africa earlier this year. More than 20 Tests in the space of three years is a long enough sample period to present a pattern and, despite what the rest of this series might bring, it's about time to bury the myth about India's middle order.
India's batting in recent years has been about two men. One of them isn't here. Despite his failure in South Africa, Virender Sehwag averages 46.89 in Tests since May 2004 and, incredibly, his average goes a couple of points higher if you remove his Tests against Zimbabwe.
The other is Rahul Dravid, who averages nearly 50 without his runs against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. India missed a big innings from him in South Africa. It was the first time since 2000 that he'd gone through a series without a half-century and it perhaps cost India the series. In both innings at Lord's he was dismissed without getting in, which is not something that can be said about Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly.
Batsmen who get into the 30s can't be described as out of form. But the failure to push on from there must point to something. Has the process of survival become so onerous that it is draining away the mental resources needed to construct more substantial innings? Can the body no longer endure the rigour? Is it a combination of both?
Now I thought I'd posted before the 1st test (but I cant find it so maybe I just intended to
) that I wasnt sure on the strength of the Indian 'Galacticos'. Like the article above I dont really have many doubts over Dravid, & I have a lot of respect for Gangulys 'toughness' but I'm not sure they're as good as they were. My theory was/is that a tour of England tends to be a perfect end to a big career, particularly regarding India & the old 'Empire & Commonwealth' bit, & its the kind of tour that you hold on for in your career. An example of this but the other way around was Warne, McGrath, Langer & even Martyn walking after or during last winters Ashes.
A strong player is the bloke who knows his strengths & weaknesses, knows what he can & cant do, for example both Hutton & Steve Waugh decided to give up the hook, but in this case its also a player knowing when to retire.
Tendulkar is undoubtedly one of the 2 best batsmen I've ever seen live, with Ricky Ponting, though KP could be the most exciting........but are the reasons of players like him, Laxman & Ganguly for coming to England the right ones ?? I guess if any of them retire afterwards we'll know.
The figures in that article say a lot, & theres also an article on Cricinfo today saying in the last 4 series' that England have played India, Englands bowlers have been understrength but have done well each time.
Possibly not all they're cracked up to be ?? Time will tell