Let's cut India some slack

[the_outsider]

Why India is the number 1 side in the world right now

The win-loss ratio in home Tests from 1 Jan 2015:


15.0 - India (W15/L1)
6.00 - Australia (12/2)
3.50 - South Africa (14/4)
3.33 - New Zealand (10/3)
1.88 - England (17/9)
1.38 - Sri Lanka (11/8)
1.33 - Pakistan (4/3)
0.63 - West Indies (5/8)
0.50 - Bangladesh (2/4)


The win-loss ratio in away Tests from 1 Jan 2015:


1.50 - India (W9/L6)
0.90 - Pakistan (9/10)
0.75 - Australia (9/12)
0.60 - Sri Lanka (6/10)
0.44 - South Africa (4/9)
0.43 - New Zealand (3/7)
0.29 - England (4/14)
0.27 - West Indies (3/11)
0.13 - Bangladesh (1/8)


The win-loss ratio for Asian Teams outside Asia and non-Asian teams in Asia from 1 Jan 2015:


0.80 - India (W4/L5)
0.55 - Pakistan (5/9)
0.33 - Australia (2/6)
0.25 - West Indies (1/4)
0.14 - England (1/7)
0.11 - Sri Lanka (1/9)
0.00 - New Zealand (0/3)
0.00 - South Africa (0/5)
0.00 - Bangladesh (0/6)


The win-loss ratio for Asian Teams in SENA and non-Asian teams in Asia from 1 Jan 2015:


0.40 - India (W2/L5)
0.37 - Pakistan (3/8)
0.33 - Australia (2/6)
0.25 - West Indies (1/4)
0.14 - England (1/7)
0.00 - New Zealand (0/3)
0.00 - Bangladesh (0/4)
0.00 - South Africa (0/5)
0.00 - Sri Lanka (0/8)

 

[Chrish]

No 1 team shouldn’t be this clueless outside of their dan. It was a disgraceful performance overall. They deserve far worse than what they are getting.

 

[Chrish]

And while we’re at it, they aren’t gonna win a single game in Australia either despite two of their main players not being present.

This is no. 1 team in the world for you..

 

[Tusker]

The win-loss ratio in home Tests from 1 Jan 2015:


15.0 - India (W15/L1)
6.00 - Australia (12/2)
3.50 - South Africa (14/4)
3.33 - New Zealand (10/3)
1.88 - England (17/9)
1.38 - Sri Lanka (11/8)
1.33 - Pakistan (4/3)
0.63 - West Indies (5/8)
0.50 - Bangladesh (2/4)


The win-loss ratio in away Tests from 1 Jan 2015:


1.50 - India (W9/L6)
0.90 - Pakistan (9/10)
0.75 - Australia (9/12)
0.60 - Sri Lanka (6/10)
0.44 - South Africa (4/9)
0.43 - New Zealand (3/7)
0.29 - England (4/14)
0.27 - West Indies (3/11)
0.13 - Bangladesh (1/8)


The win-loss ratio for Asian Teams outside Asia and non-Asian teams in Asia from 1 Jan 2015:


0.80 - India (W4/L5)
0.55 - Pakistan (5/9)
0.33 - Australia (2/6)
0.25 - West Indies (1/4)
0.14 - England (1/7)
0.11 - Sri Lanka (1/9)
0.00 - New Zealand (0/3)
0.00 - South Africa (0/5)
0.00 - Bangladesh (0/6)


The win-loss ratio for Asian Teams in SENA and non-Asian teams in Asia from 1 Jan 2015:


0.40 - India (W2/L5)
0.37 - Pakistan (3/8)
0.33 - Australia (2/6)
0.25 - West Indies (1/4)
0.14 - England (1/7)
0.00 - New Zealand (0/3)
0.00 - Bangladesh (0/4)
0.00 - South Africa (0/5)
0.00 - Sri Lanka (0/8)

You don't get it .... the criteria is completely different for India on this forum. Their Home wins are inconsequential in the scheme of things. This kills two birds in one stone - Takes out Indias home wins and at the same time writes off losses in India for the SENA countries. Once that has happened then the next step is to just declare Eng as the only country where results matter. You cant win here

 

[The_Odd_One]

Things are bad when you enjoy a fluke win and Hardik Pandya is your second best batsman with an average of 24 something.

 

[the_outsider]

You don't get it .... the criteria is completely different for India on this forum. Their Home wins are inconsequential in the scheme of things. This kills two birds in one stone - Takes out Indias home wins and at the same time writes off losses in India for the SENA countries. Once that has happened then the next step is to just declare Eng as the only country where results matter. You cant win here

Yes I have seen that here

Members like [MENTION=146500]RainMan_[/MENTION] [MENTION=146948]Slim[/MENTION] and [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] will still swear that India is a "fake" no 1 team.

 

[Pete Rose]

Agree except for the bold part.

Pandya has been good in 1/4 tests of this series which is simply not good enough at this level. England all rounders have shown how important is it for them to shine especially when the specialist bats are so out of form. In fact, if not for Eng all rounders, the score of this series might've been reversed.

Perhaps time has come to show Pandya the door and play a proper bat in his place. His batting has regressed really badly over last few months, in all formats of the game. Too much hype has been centered around him, should be shown that its performance which is the only criteria for selection. Though I doubt whether Kohli & Shastri have gits to drop him from any format.

Ten wickets in this series so far at 24 point something and third highest on run aggregates for India is not anything to sneeze at.
He has not encouraged or created the hype. Commentators and fans have been deriding his comparison to Kapil Dev. Thats not something he pushed.
India has lost this series because their key batsmen have been poor, not their fast bowling all rounder.

 

[Pete Rose]

No 1 team shouldn’t be this clueless outside of their dan. It was a disgraceful performance overall. They deserve far worse than what they are getting.

Why shouldn't the number 1 team be clueless? All top teams are struggling to put up consistent performances abroad. Saffers losing to the Lankans.
The number one ranking is a statistical formula, built on objective reality.
if you dont like the methodology, then thats with the ICC. I dont recall India comparing their number one ranking to the Australian teams of the 90's or the West Indies of the 80's.

For me there is only one form of legitimate bias that should be applied vs. India/England/Australia. They will play more tests than the other nations and their players will end up with better figures over time.
Imagine that like Pakistan, India had played a two test match series vs. England, guys like Rahane and Pujara, would be judged to be failures in the series.
This is the luxury that teams like Pakistan have less and less of: long enough series where their players (a) build up decent records (b) get exposure to playing tough conditions/opposition for longer (c) have the the opportunity to turn around their performance in a long series.

 

[Slim]

Yes I have seen that here

Members like [MENTION=146500]RainMan_[/MENTION] [MENTION=146948]Slim[/MENTION] and [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] will still swear that India is a "fake" no 1 team.

Look buddy if it helps you or anyone sleep at night, India is the real number 1. A real number 1 that has not managed to win an away series in either SA or England.

 

[Bilal7]

They deserves credit for their pace bowling which has finally caught up to the rest of the top teams. Now, they just have to ensure that they pick the right spinners and batsmen for their next series:

1) Rahul
2) Dhawan
3) Pujara
4) Kohli (c)
5) Rahane
6) Pant (wk)
7) Jadeja
8) Shami
9) Ishant
10) Umesh
11) Bumrah

 

[the_outsider]

Look buddy if it helps you or anyone sleep at night, India is the real number 1. A real number 1 that has not managed to win an away series in either SA or England.

Do you know how many times 90s and 2000s Australia had a series win in India in?

Once

Get with the program dude! Even the greatest test team ever barely won in foreign conditions.

They have won 1 series and in India and lost all others in the last 48 years! That's just how modern day test cricket is, unfortunately.

Teams hardly win in alien conditions. If you're going to keep on harping about India not winning series in SENA then you need to re-examine every team.

I'm not saying that this Indian team is anywhere close to 90s/2000s Australia but if they can't win and still be considered the greatest team ever, then perhaps you should finally keep your bias aside and admit that this Indian team is the #1 side. The stats I've given already proves that they are winning more matches than any other team in away games and in foreign conditions.

 

[Chrish]

Why shouldn't the number 1 team be clueless? All top teams are struggling to put up consistent performances abroad. Saffers losing to the Lankans.
The number one ranking is a statistical formula, built on objective reality.
if you dont like the methodology, then thats with the ICC. I dont recall India comparing their number one ranking to the Australian teams of the 90's or the West Indies of the 80's.

For me there is only one form of legitimate bias that should be applied vs. India/England/Australia. They will play more tests than the other nations and their players will end up with better figures over time.
Imagine that like Pakistan, India had played a two test match series vs. England, guys like Rahane and Pujara, would be judged to be failures in the series.
This is the luxury that teams like Pakistan have less and less of: long enough series where their players (a) build up decent records (b) get exposure to playing tough conditions/opposition for longer (c) have the the opportunity to turn around their performance in a long series.

If the excuse is “every team struggles outside of home” then they are no. 1 only due to long home season and shouldn’t be labeled as the best team in the world.

 

[the_outsider]

If the excuse is “every team struggles outside of home” then they are no. 1 only due to long home season and shouldn’t be labeled as the best team in the world.

If you don't know your cricket history then you shouldn't be hanging around on this forum. It makes no sense.

 

[kuskash]

Do you know how many times 90s and 2000s Australia had a series win in India in?

Once

Get with the program dude! Even the greatest test team ever barely won in foreign conditions.

They have won 1 series and in India and lost all others in the last 48 years! That's just how modern day test cricket is, unfortunately.

Teams hardly win in alien conditions. If you're going to keep on harping about India not winning series in SENA then you need to re-examine every team.

I'm not saying that this Indian team is anywhere close to 90s/2000s Australia but if they can't win and still be considered the greatest team ever, then perhaps you should finally keep your bias aside and admit that this Indian team is the #1 side. The stats I've given already proves that they are winning more matches than any other team in away games and in foreign conditions.

Sir, great post but it will be wastage of your precious time arguing with some ultra biased fans.

 

[the_outsider]

Sir, great post but it will be wastage of your precious time arguing with some ultra biased fans.

Unfortunately, yes. Biased people will always remain biased even in the face of hard facts.

 

[MP2011]

Ten wickets in this series so far at 24 point something and third highest on run aggregates for India is not anything to sneeze at.
He has not encouraged or created the hype. Commentators and fans have been deriding his comparison to Kapil Dev. Thats not something he pushed.
India has lost this series because their key batsmen have been poor, not their fast bowling all rounder.

I still stand by my rating of Pandya. He failed in 3/4 tests so he is a failure on this trip. Of course, he is bit better than others but that doesn't mean he fulfilled what was expected of him. And if he can't take a single wicket at Southampton then he probably won't get too many in India.

 

[MP2011]

If the excuse is “every team struggles outside of home” then they are no. 1 only due to long home season and shouldn’t be labeled as the best team in the world.

lol.

Aus and Eng probably play more home tests than India. They never get penalized for that. In fact, except for last 2-3 years, India didn't even have an established home season while Eng and Aus have for long an established home season with fixed no. of tests in every home season. For instance, India will play just 2 home tests this home season. Contrast this with the no. of home tests played by Eng and Aus!

 

[MP2011]

Why shouldn't the number 1 team be clueless? All top teams are struggling to put up consistent performances abroad. Saffers losing to the Lankans.
The number one ranking is a statistical formula, built on objective reality.
if you dont like the methodology, then thats with the ICC. I dont recall India comparing their number one ranking to the Australian teams of the 90's or the West Indies of the 80's.

No one has yet bothered to tell if not India which other test team is good enough to be called no. in world?

 

[MP2011]

For me there is only one form of legitimate bias that should be applied vs. India/England/Australia. They will play more tests than the other nations and their players will end up with better figures over time.

Imagine that like Pakistan, India had played a two test match series vs. England, guys like Rahane and Pujara, would be judged to be failures in the series.

This is the luxury that teams like Pakistan have less and less of: long enough series where their players (a) build up decent records (b) get exposure to playing tough conditions/opposition for longer (c) have the the opportunity to turn around their performance in a long series.

2 points,

1) That's for PCB to look at. At least at home they could schedule 4-5 test series. But alas, most no. of tests they host in a home series is 3, with most of their home test series being 2-tests long. Don't think ECB, CA or BCCI have any say in how many tests Pakistan will play at home!

2) When you play shorter series, while you're at disadvantage of not completely knowing the foreign conditions in just 2 tests, you also get huge advantage of knowing it being a short series, you can throw whatever you've at opposition. Case in point in '14, SL played 2-tests series in Eng and won that series 1-0? Same year, India were ahead by 1-0 after completion of first 2 tests. Had that series too been 2-tests long, India would've won that series just like SL did earlier.

So you see its a double edged sword. You've pros and cons of both long and short series. You can't penalize a team just because they played longer series than Pakistan.

 

[the_outsider]

And if Pandya can't take a single wicket at Southampton then he probably won't get too many in India.

He got Cook out in the 1st innings.

But yes, India doesn't need a 3rd seamer - certainly not Pandya - on Indian wickets.

 

[Pete Rose]

2 points,

1) That's for PCB to look at. At least at home they could schedule 4-5 test series. But alas, most no. of tests they host in a home series is 3, with most of their home test series being 2-tests long. Don't think ECB, CA or BCCI have any say in how many tests Pakistan will play at home!

2) When you play shorter series, while you're at disadvantage of not completely knowing the foreign conditions in just 2 tests, you also get huge advantage of knowing it being a short series, you can throw whatever you've at opposition. Case in point in '14, SL played 2-tests series in Eng and won that series 1-0? Same year, India were ahead by 1-0 after completion of first 2 tests. Had that series too been 2-tests long, India would've won that series just like SL did earlier.

So you see its a double edged sword. You've pros and cons of both long and short series. You can't penalize a team just because they played longer series than Pakistan.

Yes of course you are right on both points. But there are systemic financial issues that determine who plays how many tests.

 

[Pete Rose]

He got Cook out in the 1st innings.

But yes, India doesn't need a 3rd seamer - certainly not Pandya - on Indian wickets.

I would say that the debate should not be is Pandya good enough. I think he shows enough potential to be persisted with. The question should be whether he should play every game if conditions are kept in mind. Maybe India could have played a spinner in the fourth test given the conditions. Having said that, Ashwin was the bigger disappointment in the 4th test.

Pakistan will have similar discussions over their coming season. They have five home tests followed by three away tests in South Africa. They hVe two decent all rounders (Faheem and Shadab). Conventional wisdom would indicate that Faheem should not play at home and Shadab can be the allrounder/support spinner for yasir shah. But Pakistan also need to play Faheem Ashraf in a home test somehow so that he is in some sort of form when we tour South Africa.

 

[happydavy]

Damn I just checked this thread after a couple of days and seems like few posters have lost it. Someone saying India doesn't deserve sympathy, someone saying they deserve far off, m sorry I didn't know that many posters here struggle with basic English. Who is anyone to give sympathy to India, you can keep your dose of sympathy on a stick and you know what to do next.

The objective of this thread was fairly simple - to highlight that visiting teams chances of winning go down significantly if they are chasing 4th inning target rather than defending it. Unfortunately hardly any objective discussion on it, rest ethng being discussed

 

[Chrish]

India won’t win a single game in Australia despite their main guys not playing. Will have plenty of evidence by then but fan girls will still come up with excuses, like how every team struggles etc.

 

[RainMan_]

Damn I just checked this thread after a couple of days and seems like few posters have lost it. Someone saying India doesn't deserve sympathy, someone saying they deserve far off, m sorry I didn't know that many posters here struggle with basic English. Who is anyone to give sympathy to India, you can keep your dose of sympathy on a stick and you know what to do next.

The objective of this thread was fairly simple - to highlight that visiting teams chances of winning go down significantly if they are chasing 4th inning target rather than defending it. Unfortunately hardly any objective discussion on it, rest ethng being discussed

Why r u getting so worked up, huh? As a no1 test team India have played poor cricket in this series against a depleted England team and now on their way of receiving a 4-1 HAMMERING.

Here u r asking everyone to cut India some slack because of Kohli's bad luck with the toss. U R ACTING as if India would've done some wonder had they won the toss.

India have been ridding on luck in this series. In the first 3 tests England have dropped 15 catches. Yes, u've heard it right. 15 freaking catch. Thats 5 dropped catch per match. If England had managed to held onto those catches India would've been hammered in a much more humiliating fashion.


The highest scorer of this series kohli has been dropped 4 times in the course of first 3 tests. If England's slip catching wasn't as pathetic as it has been in this series, kohli's record with the bat wouldn't have been much different than his record in 2015 England tour.

 

[RainMan_]

A round of applause for the reigning no 1 (lol) test team that hasn't manged to chase down anything above 100 in last 15 years.

 

[the_outsider]

India have been ridding on luck in this series. In the first 3 tests England have dropped 15 catches. Yes, u've heard it right. 15 freaking catch. Thats 5 dropped catch per match. If England had managed to held onto those catches India would've been hammered in a much more humiliating fashion.


The highest scorer of this series kohli has been dropped 4 times in the course of first 3 tests. If England's slip catching wasn't as pathetic as it has been in this series, kohli's record with the bat wouldn't have been much different than his record in 2015 England tour.

England's poor fielding is their problem.

India also started off poorly in the field. They have dropped 9 catches so far. They improved over the course of the series. The fact that England could not is on them, not India.

 

[RainMan_]

a round of applause for the reigning no 1 (lol) test team that hasn't manged to chase down anything above 100 in last 15 years.

outside asia.

 

[the_outsider]

A round of applause for the reigning no 1 (lol) test team that hasn't manged to chase down anything above 100 in last 15 years.

You will conjure up many reasons to bring India's ranking in to question. But you don't have the guts to challenge the stats I've put forward.

I suppose you and your team are both similar in that way...

 

[RainMan_]

England's poor fielding is their problem.

India also started off poorly in the field. They have dropped 9 catches so far. They improved over the course of the series. The fact that England could not is on them, not India.

That's what I'm saying too. As a lower 5th ranked team England have played played poor cricket in this series, dropped countless dollies, made selection blunders and the list goes on and on but still they have hammered the so called no1 team with ease. Just imagine what would've happened if they had played their A game

 

[Kohli The King of Chase]

No amount of excuses from our fans would hide our humiliation.

It's sad seeing the #1 team getting knocked out.

Kohli was outstanding as usual

Pacers (Ishant, Shami, Bumrah) were good

Pujara, Rahane, Yadav and Ashwin have been average.

Lokesh RahuAkmal, Rishabh Pant, Murali Vijay, Hardik Eng 5 fer Sa 90 Pandya, Shikhar Dhawan, KuldeepYadav and, Dinesh Karthik have been embarrassing

 

[happydavy]

Whosoever has seen my posts, would know that i am one of the harshest critics of this Indian team. Even prior to the England tour, i said it multiple times that all the hype around India seems funny because there was nothing in numbers to suggest that India has become a better travelling team. I dislike most Indian test players including Pujara, Ashwin and Rahane, and feel all of them are massively overrated.

Having said all of that, i think we need to cut India some slack because Kohli's bad luck with toss, meant India has no chance of winning the series.

Since beginning of 2014, 206 test matches have been played of which visiting teams have won 63, which actually is a pretty decent ratio of 30%.

Of these 63 away victories -
45 times are while defending targets in 4th innings
18 times while chasing 4th inning targets

Only 18 times have visiting teams successfully chased 4th inning target in these 206 matches.

Out of these 18 times, 7 victories are against WI/SL and another 3 against Ireland/Bdesh/Zim. Big teams have lost like 8 times while defending 4th inning scores.

Infact, India is lucky to win the third test because Joe Root won the toss and elected to ball first. There was absolutely no need to do that. Home teams just don't lose if they bat first - Something happens, some lower batsmen scores a fifty, a century partnership comes up from nowhere but the home teams don't perform poorly in 3rd or 4th inning.

Last 12 tests have been won by teams winning toss and batting first. With today's victory of India, visiting teams are having a stellar time in the last 2 months - England defeated Lanka 3-0 and each time
England batted first, NZ defeated Pak twice and each time batted first, and Zimbabwe defeated Bdesh and again Zimbabwe batted first.

 

[MP2011]

If the excuse is “every team struggles outside of home” then they are no. 1 only due to long home season and shouldn’t be labeled as the best team in the world.

lol, now Aus lost a test at home. What excuse is left now? Aus was playing their worst ever team?

 

[rhony]

Last 12 tests have been won by teams winning toss and batting first. With today's victory of India, visiting teams are having a stellar time in the last 2 months - England defeated Lanka 3-0 and each time
England batted first, NZ defeated Pak twice and each time batted first, and Zimbabwe defeated Bdesh and again Zimbabwe batted first.

Good point. They should eliminate the toss and let the visiting team choose as we saw in county cricket. That will help create pitches that last 5 days and will make compelling viewing.

 

[GrandMaster]

India won’t win a single game in Australia despite their main guys not playing. Will have plenty of evidence by then but fan girls will still come up with excuses, like how every team struggles etc.

Interesting comment

 

[happydavy]

Good point. They should eliminate the toss and let the visiting team choose as we saw in county cricket. That will help create pitches that last 5 days and will make compelling viewing.

I agree with your suggestion but disagree with the rationale. Don't think pitches have anything to do with these results, after all Pakistan lost by 4 runs only, today Australia also lost by 30 odd runs only. Pitches are fine, infact last thing we want is those imran Khan's style flat decks where scores of 600+ are common and home teams do anything to not loose the match. To me, this could start one of the finest eras of test cricket as almost every match is producing result. Giving toss to visiting team will ensure more chances of away victories for every nation which will be a great thing.

 

[rhony]

I agree with your suggestion but disagree with the rationale. Don't think pitches have anything to do with these results, after all Pakistan lost by 4 runs only, today Australia also lost by 30 odd runs only. Pitches are fine, infact last thing we want is those imran Khan's style flat decks where scores of 600+ are common and home teams do anything to not loose the match. To me, this could start one of the finest eras of test cricket as almost every match is producing result. Giving toss to visiting team will ensure more chances of away victories for every nation which will be a great thing.

There is a huge impact. Pakistan for example doesn't want to bat in the 4th innings. Even India doesn't want to bat 4th in subcontinent. Let's put it this way. How many teams in this present time will bat 2nd and 4th if they win the toss?

 

[giri26]

There is a huge impact. Pakistan for example doesn't want to bat in the 4th innings. Even India doesn't want to bat 4th in subcontinent. Let's put it this way. How many teams in this present time will bat 2nd and 4th if they win the toss?

The problem for Pakistan is their batting in the second innings. India lost the toss multiple times at home in the last couple of years. The biggest difference is that India bat big in the second innings at home which is what happened against England couple of years ago. Pakistan's issue is that in spite of bowling out New Zealand under 300, they struggle to score 400-500 runs when their chance comes to bat. If they did they they can still win the game and would not have to bat in the 4th innings or not chase a target which is high.

 

[Rahul1]

And while we’re at it, they aren’t gonna win a single game in Australia either despite two of their main players not being present.

This is no. 1 team in the world for you..

Come again?

 

[Napa]

And while we’re at it, they aren’t gonna win a single game in Australia either despite two of their main players not being present.

This is no. 1 team in the world for you..

This post didn't age well

 

[Chrish]

lol, now Aus lost a test at home. What excuse is left now? Aus was playing their worst ever team?

Interesting comment

Come again?

This post didn't age well

Good rubbing in

Didn't follow the first game but saw good bit of play yesterday. Magnificent bowling from Aussies and equally impressive batting from India especially Kohli. Very exited about today's play.

 

[Napa]

Good rubbing in

Didn't follow the first game but saw good bit of play yesterday. Magnificent bowling from Aussies and equally impressive batting from India especially Kohli. Very exited about today's play.

Fair enough, good of you to respond. I am sure we have all posted howlers at some point

 

[Buffet]

Good rubbing in

Didn't follow the first game but saw good bit of play yesterday. Magnificent bowling from Aussies and equally impressive batting from India especially Kohli. Very exited about today's play.

Aus and India, both bowled very well in first test as well. I am actually impressed by Aus bowling so well. Most of the times Aus goes off color in some sessions. Here they have been relentless. I think Aus will win this test.

 

[BaankeJi]

Aus and India, both bowled very well in first test as well. I am actually impressed by Aus bowling so well. Most of the times Aus goes off color in some sessions. Here they have been relentless. I think Aus will win this test.

And that will make you happy?

 

[Tusker]

This is why I do not rate Test Cricket. Toss is a factor, weather is a factor, pitch is a factor, home or away is 90% a factor. Everything is a factor.

No other sports in the world has these many factors.

thats a fair point. Almost impossible to ensure that both teams are on level playing field for the entire duration of the match.

 

[TheSensible]

We can take team selection and game time decisions into consideration but didn't Kohli go through a LONG streak of toss losses in SA and England?

The test that India won in England was the only game I remember Kohli winning the toss on.

 

[Buffet]

And that will make you happy?

Why not? We will then have 3rd test with 1-1 score. Can't ask for a better series to watch.

 

[Buffet]

We can take team selection and game time decisions into consideration but didn't Kohli go through a LONG streak of toss losses in SA and England?

The test that India won in England was the only game I remember Kohli winning the toss on.

He has not lost any away tests after winning toss. Toss has been a major factor.

 

[happydavy]

Have been saying this for a while, visiting teams don't win if they don't bat first. Don't know how long it has been since a visiting team won a test chasing in 4th inning, just doesn't happen.

 

[Varun]

Don't cut any slack.

Let Shaoli (Shastri & Kohli) have it.