WI in INDIA ¤ NOV 13 ¤ 2 TEST

[koushik]

Ind 495/10 (108 Ovs) 1st
Innings
Batting
Pujara
113(167)
Rohit
111(127)
Bowling
S Shillingford
5/179
Deonarine
2/45

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[koushik]

Rohit Should Bat @ no 4

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[Modad]

This will be over by day 3. Adios Sir Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar

[koushik]

WI 43/3
Chandrapaul please make 150 on ur 150th test.i want to see india bat again.

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[zman]

^erm this is WI we're talking about...even if Chanderpaul were to score 150 they wouldn't be able to avoid follow on...the more realistic question is - will WI be bowled out before lunch or after lunch on day 3? Series' like this make you wonder if the word minnow should even exist in the vernacular of world cricket! At the end of the day how much separation is there between WI, SL, NZ, Ban and Zim any longer!
IMO these are the 3 tiers we have currently--
1. SA, Eng, Ind, Aus
2. Pak
3. SL, NZ, WI, Ban, Zim
Once Pak's 2 aging superstar batsmen retire they'll likely fall to the next tier.

[NoName]

^ I'd say SL is still a strong test side, Sanga and Mahela are beasts in that format. They'd be Pak level tier.

[simon]

WI ki parey ? na parey bat korte na parey bowl korte, faltu ekta team.
IPL, BPL chara eder kono goti nai

[Tiger444]

Originally Posted by zman
^erm this is WI we're talking about...even if Chanderpaul were to score 150 they wouldn't be able to avoid follow on...the more realistic question is - will WI be bowled out before lunch or after lunch on day 3? Series' like this make you wonder if the word minnow should even exist in the vernacular of world cricket! At the end of the day how much separation is there between WI, SL, NZ, Ban and Zim any longer!
IMO these are the 3 tiers we have currently--
1. SA, Eng, Ind, Aus
2. Pak
3. SL, NZ, WI, Ban, Zim
Once Pak's 2 aging superstar batsmen retire they'll likely fall to the next tier.

Disagree with the tiers you put up here. I think you went overall but to me it's better to separate both formats.

So for me in Tests

Tier 1: South Africa
Tier 2: England
Tier 3: Australia, India, Pakistan
Tier 4: West Indies, Sri Lanka
Tier 5: Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, New Zealand

Reasoning: since 2011, South Africa has a W/L ratio of 4.33. Next best is England with 2.14. South Africa deserves to be in their own tier and England in their own as well since nobody else has a W/L ratio of 2.

Reason I have Pakistan with India and Australia, laugh all you want at them but they have a higher W/L compared to them and they beat England 3 times and South Africa once in this period. So they belong in the tier with India and Australia.

As for the rest, I have Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and New Zealand below West Indies and Sri Lanka because they have a W/L ratio below 0.5. Therefore these teams as of right now belong in a tier up from the bottom although SL will be a bottom feeder soon if they continue to struggle.

As for ODIs, here's my opinion,

Tier 1: India
Tier 2: England, Australia, Pakistan, South Africa
Tier 3: Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh, New Zealand
Tier 4: Zimbabwe

In ODIs, India deserves to be in a league of their own as they have W/L ratio of 2.05, the only team to do so in ODIs. Their still the team to beat in ODIs. Tier 3 teams don't make it due to the fact that they have a W/L ratio below a 1. And Zimbabwe is in their own league at the bottom because besides the 5 wins against Bangladesh during this time period, they are 2-18. Therefore they are not good enough for Tier 3.

Those are my views where things stand

[zman]

^I see your reasoning which is purely based on analytics and can appreciate your effort. I however looked at things at a much higher level and kept things simple. Way I look at it, if we're going to have so many tiers for only 10 teams, then why not add a couple more and just rank them instead

Your tiers are a reflection of past performance alone, which is fine. My system by comparison is a two tier system (for test cricket only) and in creating my tiers I tried to answer one simple but key question--which teams are likely to win or draw against the opposition if a match is played at home? Additionally, I took into account certain intangibles, namely upcoming retirement of certain key players and markedly improved performance of certain teams in recent times.

I've mentioned in other threads, teams like SL, WI, Pak--each of them are retirement of couple of aging marquee players away from dropping down a notch. Ban and Zim on the other hand have developed a solid core who have been playing together for quite some time now and recently started showing solid and consistent progress.

One other thing, teams in my top tier are likely to win against teams in the bottom tier whether matches are played at home or away. But Pak is the only exception in my mind. They could become mediocre when Younis and Misbah retire, or if they somehow find a couple of decent replacements they could crack the top tier, only because they have a superb bowling attack to back their batsmen. This conundrum led me to introduce a temporary middle tier composed of one team, which will no longer be required in a year or two.

[Tiger444]

Originally Posted by zman
^I see your reasoning which is purely based on analytics and can appreciate your effort. I however looked at things at a much higher level and kept things simple. Way I look at it, if we're going to have so many tiers for only 10 teams, then why not add a couple more and just rank them instead

Your tiers are a reflection of past performance alone, which is fine. My system by comparison is a two tier system (for test cricket only) and in creating my tiers I tried to answer one simple but key question--which teams are likely to win or draw against the opposition if a match is played at home? Additionally, I took into account certain intangibles, namely upcoming retirement of certain key players and markedly improved performance of certain teams in recent times.

I've mentioned in other threads, teams like SL, WI, Pak--each of them are retirement of couple of aging marquee players away from dropping down a notch. Ban and Zim on the other hand have developed a solid core who have been playing together for quite some time now and recently started showing solid and consistent progress.

One other thing, teams in my top tier are likely to win against teams in the bottom tier whether matches are played at home or away. But Pak is the only exception in my mind. They could become mediocre when Younis and Misbah retire, or if they somehow find a couple of decent replacements they could crack the top tier, only because they have a superb bowling attack to back their batsmen. This conundrum led me to introduce a temporary middle tier composed of one team, which will no longer be required in a year or two.

Agreed 100%. I guess both of us were thinking along similar lines but had different ways of saying it.

By the way, the competitiveness in Test cricket is pretty worrying. We can say it's due to the key retirements of some of the players but I can honestly say there just isn't good quality amongst the Test teams. The only one I really rate is South Africa because they've proven themselves home and away and not to mention, they've beaten all the top sides. England's a pretty good side and they've also proven themselves home and away. Big test coming up for them against Australia.

The rest on the other hand I can't really rate as very good Test sides. India and Australia are better than the others but question is are they really that good? India lost 8 matches away from home against Australia and England and then Australia lost 7 games to India and England. For the rest of the teams, well the less said the better.

Now is the time where the competitiveness in Tests needs to be at a high point, especially since the popularity of the format has gone down. It's hard however to have people interested when the matches are of such low quality and when the matches are lopsided.

[ahnaf]

Tbh,there are only two tier team atm.
Tier 1: Home team
Tier 2: Away team
Every home team giving wash and every away team getting wash except Rsa probably..

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[koushik]

102/6
9WKT for Ojha

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[Night_wolf]

Originally Posted by ahnaf
Tbh,there are only two tier team atm.
Tier 1: Home team
Tier 2: Away team
Every home team giving wash and every away team getting wash except Rsa probably..

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

This

and also except pak..they dont have a home

[Neel Here]

Originally Posted by simon
WI ki parey ? na parey bat korte na parey bowl korte, faltu ekta team.
IPL, BPL chara eder kono goti nai

+1
what a sham of a series. BD would have at least given us a fight in these conditions.

[koushik]

Originally Posted by Neel Here
+1
what a sham of a series. BD would have at least given us a fight in these conditions.

yes i am agree wid u.wi lost both match by innings in 2.5 day

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[koushik]

Rank (+/-) Team Rating
(+/-)
1 South Africa 131
2 (+1) India 119 (+3)
3 (-1) England 116
4 Pakistan 102
5 Australia 101
6 (-) West Indies 95 (-4)
7 Sri Lanka 88
8 New Zealand 75
9 Zimbabwe 34
10 Bangladesh 18
__________________

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[ahnaf]

Originally Posted by Night_wolf
This

and also except pak..they dont have a home

true but still that cant be an exception as they are getting washed everywhere..

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by Tiger444
Agreed 100%. I guess both of us were thinking along similar lines but had different ways of saying it.

By the way, the competitiveness in Test cricket is pretty worrying. We can say it's due to the key retirements of some of the players but I can honestly say there just isn't good quality amongst the Test teams. The only one I really rate is South Africa because they've proven themselves home and away and not to mention, they've beaten all the top sides. England's a pretty good side and they've also proven themselves home and away. Big test coming up for them against Australia.

The rest on the other hand I can't really rate as very good Test sides. India and Australia are better than the others but question is are they really that good? India lost 8 matches away from home against Australia and England and then Australia lost 7 games to India and England. For the rest of the teams, well the less said the better.

Now is the time where the competitiveness in Tests needs to be at a high point, especially since the popularity of the format has gone down. It's hard however to have people interested when the matches are of such low quality and when the matches are lopsided.

quality has certainly gone downhill. SA are great atm though, england is pretty good, like genuinely a solid team and i'm talking even compared to great teams they're solid, they aren't a great team but they wouldn't do badly against a great team imo. india's batting is pretty good but other than that it really is worrying. i say get ireland in there, i think they would be a good edition to test cricket and actually strengthen it in the long run.

australia is going hugely downhill. even if guys like watson, rogers, bailey etc start to perform consistently then australia will still struggle in a couple of years because they only have a few years left (rogers especially) and there literally isn't anyone to replace them. pacers are doing alright but also getting constantly injured.

the good thing is BD is on the rise, especially with batting strength, just think of the current lot but in 5 years time with 5 more years of experience, BD's batting should be pretty strong for the next 10 or so years you would think, and the spin should hopefully be solid and hopefully there are enough decent pacers to fill the other spots.

WI is really struggling, once chanderpaul goes the are in real trouble. NZ are struggling as well, massively but if ryder comes back and does well then they could be solid with williamson always improving, taylor being consistent, solid pacers.

SL i actually think could be ok even once the big guns retire. of course sangakkara and jayawardene and dilshan are huge boots to fill but they look to have a good amount of batting talent coming through, if guys like chandimal, thirimanne, tharanga, even mathews (won't happen i know) don't start performing a lot better (they're all pretty experienced now so no excuse) then they should bring in some of that other batting talent.

pakistan are falling apart, they're also making horrible selections/ they need to push guys like umar akmal and shehzad in tests and start to get a solid batting line-up though they're spin attack will likely suffer soon unless they have good young back ups because ajmal, rehman and zubair are all near retiring age.

zimbabwe, they just need to be supported and we need to let them go at their own pace to improve. i don't see any point of putting huge pressure on them, how is that going to solve their issues?

[Tiger444]

Originally Posted by Gowza
quality has certainly gone downhill. SA are great atm though, england is pretty good, like genuinely a solid team and i'm talking even compared to great teams they're solid, they aren't a great team but they wouldn't do badly against a great team imo. india's batting is pretty good but other than that it really is worrying. i say get ireland in there, i think they would be a good edition to test cricket and actually strengthen it in the long run.

australia is going hugely downhill. even if guys like watson, rogers, bailey etc start to perform consistently then australia will still struggle in a couple of years because they only have a few years left (rogers especially) and there literally isn't anyone to replace them. pacers are doing alright but also getting constantly injured.

the good thing is BD is on the rise, especially with batting strength, just think of the current lot but in 5 years time with 5 more years of experience, BD's batting should be pretty strong for the next 10 or so years you would think, and the spin should hopefully be solid and hopefully there are enough decent pacers to fill the other spots.

WI is really struggling, once chanderpaul goes the are in real trouble. NZ are struggling as well, massively but if ryder comes back and does well then they could be solid with williamson always improving, taylor being consistent, solid pacers.

SL i actually think could be ok even once the big guns retire. of course sangakkara and jayawardene and dilshan are huge boots to fill but they look to have a good amount of batting talent coming through, if guys like chandimal, thirimanne, tharanga, even mathews (won't happen i know) don't start performing a lot better (they're all pretty experienced now so no excuse) then they should bring in some of that other batting talent.

pakistan are falling apart, they're also making horrible selections/ they need to push guys like umar akmal and shehzad in tests and start to get a solid batting line-up though they're spin attack will likely suffer soon unless they have good young back ups because ajmal, rehman and zubair are all near retiring age.

zimbabwe, they just need to be supported and we need to let them go at their own pace to improve. i don't see any point of putting huge pressure on them, how is that going to solve their issues?

I know you being an Aussie, your a bit worried about the future especially since you guys have such high expectations but I honestly wouldn't worry too much. Warner, Finch, Bailey, Hughes, Smith, Maxwell, Faulkner, Pattinson, Starc and Cummins are all good young players. They need a bit of time obviously but I see you guys bouncing back in Tests. After all Australia is still Australia. There's a reason why guys have been so good for so long.

I think England, India and South Africa will continue to rise as their structure will continue to churn out quality players.

I agree we're on the rise and we can only get stronger from here on out with more experience and maturity. Plus we have a lot of young talents coming up. So futures bright for us although the results aren't there to show in Tests just yet.

Even though Pakistan looks in disarray, they still have young up and coming players like Shafiq, Umar, Shehzad, Jamshed, Babar and Hammad Azam although selectors are doing their best in messing up these players but talent is there.

As for SL, NZ, WI, and Zim, I think there are a few more questions compared to the others since their pipelines don't seem to be as big as the others. Hope all of them can pull through.

Doing this analysis, I think the potential is there for these teams to pull the quality up in Tests, we'll have to play the wait and see game though. Hope the Test championship can help the competitiveness of Tests

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by Tiger444
I know you being an Aussie, your a bit worried about the future especially since you guys have such high expectations but I honestly wouldn't worry too much. Warner, Finch, Bailey, Hughes, Smith, Maxwell, Faulkner, Pattinson, Starc and Cummins are all good young players. They need a bit of time obviously but I see you guys bouncing back in Tests. After all Australia is still Australia. There's a reason why guys have been so good for so long.

I think England, India and South Africa will continue to rise as their structure will continue to churn out quality players.

I agree we're on the rise and we can only get stronger from here on out with more experience and maturity. Plus we have a lot of young talents coming up. So futures bright for us although the results aren't there to show in Tests just yet.

Even though Pakistan looks in disarray, they still have young up and coming players like Shafiq, Umar, Shehzad, Jamshed, Babar and Hammad Azam although selectors are doing their best in messing up these players but talent is there.

As for SL, NZ, WI, and Zim, I think there are a few more questions compared to the others since their pipelines don't seem to be as big as the others. Hope all of them can pull through.

Doing this analysis, I think the potential is there for these teams to pull the quality up in Tests, we'll have to play the wait and see game though. Hope the Test championship can help the competitiveness of Tests

it's strange to say but i think SL are in the best shape out of the lower lot (SL, NZ, WI, Zim). i'm optimistic about SL pulling up some batting talent and i reckon they'll find some good spin talent and they'll find pacers that are just good enough so they'll be a reasonably solid all round team i think. NZ has some talent bu i don't think they have as much or that their ceiling is as high, solid pacers but that's about it. WI pretty much only have some promising pace bowlers, there is shillingford and narine but narine is yet to prove himself in tests and shillingford just got reported again. darren bravo might become a good batsman, hard to see others coming through at this point. zim, well zim could be good if they had all their players but they don't and i think it's going to be a long road for their recovery.

[Tiger444]

Originally Posted by Gowza
it's strange to say but i think SL are in the best shape out of the lower lot (SL, NZ, WI, Zim). i'm optimistic about SL pulling up some batting talent and i reckon they'll find some good spin talent and they'll find pacers that are just good enough so they'll be a reasonably solid all round team i think. NZ has some talent bu i don't think they have as much or that their ceiling is as high, solid pacers but that's about it. WI pretty much only have some promising pace bowlers, there is shillingford and narine but narine is yet to prove himself in tests and shillingford just got reported again. darren bravo might become a good batsman, hard to see others coming through at this point. zim, well zim could be good if they had all their players but they don't and i think it's going to be a long road for their recovery.

I agree SL looks to have the best out of this lot in the future. They might not be at the level that they once were but I feel they can be a mid table team in Tests.

I think WI will be a bit similar to SL, likely a mid table team in Tests.

NZ I think will be what they'll be now. A team that'll be a lower level Test team that'll battle hard with the big boys.

Zimbabwe could be good but unfortunately lot of their players have left and their board is in shambles. Hard to believe they'll continue to improve but they'll likely be a team that will always fight.

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by Tiger444
I agree SL looks to have the best out of this lot in the future. They might not be at the level that they once were but I feel they can be a mid table team in Tests.

I think WI will be a bit similar to SL, likely a mid table team in Tests.

NZ I think will be what they'll be now. A team that'll be a lower level Test team that'll battle hard with the big boys.

Zimbabwe could be good but unfortunately lot of their players have left and their board is in shambles. Hard to believe they'll continue to improve but they'll likely be a team that will always fight.

NZ will be to reliant on williamson, taylor, maybe ryder (if he makes it back and if he come be successful again) and the solid pacers. i don't really see any other quality batsman coming through atm and they don't have any spinners either.

SL i think can become a really good batting unit, but that's pure speculation because the youngsters haven't shown any sort of consistency but the talent is there. i also think they'll have a really good spin unit so on the right pitches and conditions i think they'll be very good but at other times they'll just be mediocre.

WI is similar to NZ in that neither really have much talent coming through, it's kind of what they've got already and they've got to wait for some younger guys to develop because the current guys going around aren't good enough. they have a couple of promising pacers though e.g. holder, beaton.

zimbabwe, well yeah, difficult to say, they certainly will always fight but they've got no truly world class players, they're all grit and determination. if they can get some talent coming through then they'll do alright since they're a true fighting team (like NZ).

[Night_wolf]

Originally Posted by Neel Here
+1
what a sham of a series. BD would have at least given us a fight in these conditions.

to be honest if BD was there in place of WI then the matches would have gone to the 5th day, at the moment i have full confidence over our batting that we could score atleast 700 runs in 2 innings, but i dont know if sachin could have had ha bat with our team..with our bowling it might have been india 600/1 in both the test matches

so there is a saying in islam, what god does he do it for good

[zman]

^Most likely our bowling unit also would've fared better than that of WI. Our bowlers are better suited for these conditions. Fast bowlers have a disadvantage on these pitches unless they keep bowling accurately for session after session with Robert Bruce like patience. We know how difficult that is to achieve for bowlers who are not from the subcon. It was the spinners who took 15 of the 19 wickets for WI, with pace bowlers doing jack. Our spinners are on par with if not better than theirs. On top of that a newly developing pack mentality and knowledge of being backed by strong batting is starting to inspire bowling performances like Rubel's and Gazi's off late.

[koushik]

IND vs WI, Kochi
West Indies won the
toss, batting first,
Starts at 01:30 PM IST
(08:00 GMT), Nov 21

Teams:
West Indies (Playing
XI): Chris Gayle,
Johnson Charles(w),
Darren Bravo, Marlon
Samuels, Lendl
Simmons, Dwayne
Bravo(c), Narsingh
Deonarine, Darren
Sammy, Sunil Narine,
Ravi Rampaul, Jason
Holder
India (Playing XI):
Shikhar Dhawan, Rohit
Sharma, Virat Kohli,
Suresh Raina, Yuvraj
Singh, MS Dhoni(w/c),
Ravindra Jadeja,
Ravichandran Ashwin,
Bhuvneshwar Kumar,
Mohammed Shami,
Jaydev Unadkat

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)