The big difference between them and everyone else at the moment - in my opinion - is that they will go into a tour with a specific strategy for batting. When they went to England, they specifically put away their cut shots, instead leaving the ball or playing the square drive if the ball was full enough; this meant that the bowlers gave them plenty of what they wanted (the ball on their pads, as they adjusted to not getting wickets in the cordon) and forced England to roll out some fast bouncy decks to try and win. They came here with the specific intent to have our bowlers bowl lots of overs; it worked when Pujara did it by himself, and it worked their next tour, allowing Pant/Jadeja/Ashwin/Sundar to make hay against an exhausted attack.
We go to England or India: 'It's just how they play, can't be expected to win away against pitches like that!' or 'Got to play your natural game' and England are no better.
Outstanding post and dead right. I can 100 per cent get the lack of likability about India - they’re caustic, abrasive, like the unlikeable Aussies used to be. There is an arrogance about their cricket and their approach that in some players at least isn’t particularly endearing.
But you have to respect the professionalism with which they play. They force other teams to be good to beat them.
For three innings in the just completed test match I thought given the conditions SA probably shaded them. It was incredibly difficult to bat. But on day one SA were off with their planning and execution and that’s all it took to decide the game. There is a fearlessness about their cricket that only SA and Australia have ever had in the past 25 years.
I guess you could maybe throw a couple of England’s teams in there when Pietersen and flintoff were talismanic for them but even those sides had weak links that were mentally suspect