Posted by SpottedHyena on (November 20 2008, 23:41 PM GMT)

I'm not so sure this time. This is a very different Indian team...Remember they reached the WC final in SA, they won the T20 again in SA, they beat England at home, won a test in SA and Aus (and just about everywhere else). Unlike in the days of Srinath and Prasad, they now have a battery of decent bowlers for these wickets too. Then you have the IPL (and the unmentionable one) where young Indian players get to mingle with legends. Imagine a kickstart like this to your career - being mentored by Warne, Lara, McGrath, Murali, Tendulkar etc. etc. Plus Gary Kirsten played well just about everywhere as a player and might finally teach them a few tricks - if only to get them very fit and fielding well. The rest of the coaching staff is not too shabby either, As much as this hurts...prepare for the Indian decade...

Posted by ragomsk on (November 19 2008, 12:20 PM GMT)

I do not understand all the fuss that is taking place regarding the number of overs that have to be bowled in a day. The rule that 90 overs have to be bowled in a day has been in existence for quite some time now. I get a sneaky feeling that the issue has been raised simply because Australia the number 1 test team has lost the series because of this. But is this really the case? Remember the Australians were already 1 tests down when they came to the 4th Test. At tea time on the forth day of the last test India were already ahead by 252 runs. So even if India had lost all their wickets with any addition to the score they would have won by 43 runs! So it is not the fault of the rules or the system but a simple miscalculation by Ponting and the Australians who were already a team in disarray - wrong and injured players members were selected, wrong playing 11 was chosen, on field disagreement between Lee and Ponting. So lets not make much ado about nothing!

Posted by kalyanbk on (November 19 2008, 00:22 AM GMT)

You can penalize slow overrates in ODIs and T20s this way. Any overs bowled after the cut-off time should be made power play overs (after taking into account delays beyond the fielding teams control). This is fair to both teams batting first or second. For tests, if a team is guilty of slow over rate, the opposing captain should be allowed to suspend any player of his choice for the next test. For example if Australia was guilty of slow overrate, the England captain could suspend Michael Hussey (their star player) for the next test.

Posted by malharsire on (November 18 2008, 18:30 PM GMT)

Before we go gaga over the Indian team, we must remember all the times they have flattered to deceive. The greatest middle order in history perennially failed to perform outside India. This blow-hot blow-cold persona does not make for a No 1. team. A good tour of Australia, followed by a horrendous Test tour of Sri Lanka. Then beating the pants of a weakened Aussie team. Can we wait for a consistent run before annointing them king of the hill? We have a good (not yet great) captain. A new opener but nearing greatness and a fast bowler who is thinking greatness. So the ingredients are all there. But as they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So lets not plan to eat humble pie

Posted by mrgupta on (November 18 2008, 15:57 PM GMT)

"Stop playing test..Play only 20/20".. what was that 'Mr Javagal'? Please donot use the name of one of India's legendary Fast bowler (Who never played 20/20) to make this kind of a wish. Cricket will be nothing without Tests. I am sorry to say that you are probably not a Cricket Lover as you donot know that Test Cricket is the soul of this game and 20/20 is only the quick fun part.

Posted by Othitis on (November 18 2008, 05:11 AM GMT)

I can't believe your comments "Javagal". If you are who you say you are, you of all people should know that test cricket is the best sport in the world and the proper form of the game! One day cricket was required in the mid 1970s to save test match cricket. Twenty20 cricket is NOT required nor is it wanted by cricket loyalists and players who are in it for the right reasons... tradition, the love of the game, representing your country, the pride etc. If new viewers to cricket are intrigued and interested in twenty20 cricket only then they're not true supporters of the game and therefore the game of cricket as a whole is better off without those sorts of followers! Twenty20 cricket ruins one day and test match cricket which means it6 should be scrapped!!! As far as the overrates are concerned, I believe that excluding weather interruptions and injuries, 90 overs should be bowled (at least), everyday of a test match until finished. With fines and bans for skipper and vice if not done!

Posted by redneck on (November 18 2008, 04:59 AM GMT)

i think this talk of run penalties for slow over rates is dangerous!!! is it always the fielding team holding up play? no. a batsman can call for a new bat grip, gloves, drink even go down the pitch and talk to his partner after every ball if he wanted too. it may even be reasons beyond the two teams control eg the umpires congregating too much or spectators affecting play. to fix this problem fairly & simply scrap 2 hour sessions and make them simply 30 over sessions and neither team or umpires can go to lunch or tea break before they get 30 overs of play in (weather permitting ofcoarse). that way test cricket stays the same except players cant just look at the clock to tell how long before lunch!

Posted by jimminycricket on (November 18 2008, 02:48 AM GMT)

There is an easy solution to the over rate in test cricket. All they have to do is put in place a rule that if you dont bowl 90 overs in a day (or better still 30 overs in a session), the other team is awarded six extras for each over you fall short. So, if you bowl 28 overs in a session, tney immediately get 12 extras. Captains will soon adjust the palyer attitudes and game to accommodate the new rule, and we as cricket lovers will get our 30 overs a session.

Posted by BapiDas on (November 17 2008, 18:10 PM GMT)

The rationale behind imposing a minimum number of overs to be bowled per day was to make Test matches less "boring" (purely from 'entertainment' side, of course)and that should still remain the main motivating factor. ICC may therefore consider other ways of making Test matches more exciting rather than imposing over rates and penalties for not maintaining these rates.

Posted by cric4food on (November 17 2008, 17:33 PM GMT)

People using the word 'If' very extensively, shows their emotions overcome the logic. One person coining the idea of six days test and also went on to boast that Australia would have won the fourth test if there were six days in the test. A big IF, this type of thinking is flawed and childish. Mr Boycott, it seems like has lost the plot. To a question as to who will be the top test team in the next 12 months, he replied that England could be a team to beat 'if' they can keep Flintoff fit and can keep Harmison bowling. He failed to realize that the teams that reach the top and maintain their position are the ones that have great depth in their bench strength. You cannot be world beaters by having a couple of key players in your team. India have shown their bench strength in batting and bowling as well. Ishant was rested for 2 ODIs and still they managed to have penetration in their attack. Gambhir was banned and still india won the 4th test. That's a top team, Mr Boycott!