As the dust settles on England’s 4-0 Test series triumph, All Out Cricket have been scouring the papers in an attempt to put the achievements of Andrew Strauss’ team into context.
“For a little while here yesterday it might have been that one of the three great England teams to beat the world would suffer a powerful, perhaps even exquisite, distraction,” writes James Lawton in The Independent, explaining that it was only right that Sachin Tendulkar did not complete his quest to score 100 international centuries at The Oval as it would have stolen attention away from the scale of England’s achievements; achievements that he ranks alongside the World Cup-winning exploits of Bobby Moore’s 1966 heroes and Martin Johnson’s troops in 2003.
Steve James, writing in The Daily Telegraph, looks at the role India’s packed schedule played in their performance: “They were knackered. But just as crucially they thought they were knackered. And once that mindset was adopted, they stood no chance. We should not forget that there were periods early in the series when India competed fiercely. But they were only short periods. They simply could not sustain a challenge.”
Scyld Berry, also in The Daily Telegraph and a man who has never been shy of causing a ruckus, says that Tendulkar is an all-time great but his limitations have been exposed by England on this tour: “The truth is that we have learned more about Tendulkar this time – or rather his limitations – than on his four previous tours of England. He is the greatest accumulator since Sir Donald Bradman, dedicated to excellence and technical perfection, and records have fallen to him as a consequence. But he is not a competitor like Viv Richards was, or Rahul Dravid is.” That’s a statement that’s bound to cause a bit of consternation in India.
Meanwhile, in The Guardian, Paul Weaver lists the five things that he feels we have learned from the series, although his conclusion that “coaches don’t always work” seems more than a little harsh on Duncan Fletcher and his backroom staff considering the limited time and opportunity they have had to work with their Indian charges.
Predictably, the Indian press haven’t pulled any punches when it comes to analysing their team’s performance. The Times of India labelled the series a “crying shame” and lambasted the BCCI (“BCCI stands for Board of Control for Cricket in India. It could even be referred to as Bombastic, Callous, Chaotic and Incorrigible”) before interviewing an array of former Indian greats as to where their side could go from here.
“Indian players did not play as a team. I am not trying to blame anybody but I think they played too much cricket,” argued Kapil Dev during his interview. “Within four days of winning the World Cup you play IPL they then travel to West Indies for a tour and then from there to England. I think our players were going through the motions more than their love for the game.”
The Mid Day newspaper adopted a similar line, publishing an image of a gravestone that read “R.I.P. Indian Cricket: In Affectionate Remembrance Of Indian Cricket Which Died At The Oval On 22 August, 2011” before going on to state: “Sure, there were a couple of questionable umpiring decisions and English brilliance came to the fore once again, but the fact that seven wickets fell for just 21 runs proved that Dhoni’s men didn’t have the bottle for the fight.”
Meanwhile, back at in the UK, Jonathan Agnew used his BBC column to single out Stuart Broad as one of England’s key performers and explains that England’s performance during this series should be accorded the respect it deserves.
“Broad really epitomises the fighting spirit among the bowlers who were all over the India batsmen in every innings.
“I talked to umpire Rod Tucker on Sunday and he singled out Broad. He said this bloke is bowling absolutely unbelievably, at good pace, hitting the bat hard.
“The scale of England’s achievement is summed up in this statistic – this is only the seventh time in Test history that there has been a whitewash in a series of four matches or more.”
What The Papers Say: England v India – The Aftermath
As the dust settles on England’s 4-0 Test series triumph, All Out Cricket have been scouring the papers in an attempt to put the achievements of Andrew Strauss’ team into context.
“For a little while here yesterday it might have been that one of the three great England teams to beat the world would suffer a powerful, perhaps even exquisite, distraction,” writes James Lawton in The Independent, explaining that it was only right that Sachin Tendulkar did not complete his quest to score 100 international centuries at The Oval as it would have stolen attention away from the scale of England’s achievements; achievements that he ranks alongside the World Cup-winning exploits of Bobby Moore’s 1966 heroes and Martin Johnson’s troops in 2003.
Steve James, writing in The Daily Telegraph, looks at the role India’s packed schedule played in their performance: “They were knackered. But just as crucially they thought they were knackered. And once that mindset was adopted, they stood no chance. We should not forget that there were periods early in the series when India competed fiercely. But they were only short periods. They simply could not sustain a challenge.”
Scyld Berry, also in The Daily Telegraph and a man who has never been shy of causing a ruckus, says that Tendulkar is an all-time great but his limitations have been exposed by England on this tour: “The truth is that we have learned more about Tendulkar this time – or rather his limitations – than on his four previous tours of England. He is the greatest accumulator since Sir Donald Bradman, dedicated to excellence and technical perfection, and records have fallen to him as a consequence. But he is not a competitor like Viv Richards was, or Rahul Dravid is.” That’s a statement that’s bound to cause a bit of consternation in India.
Meanwhile, in The Guardian, Paul Weaver lists the five things that he feels we have learned from the series, although his conclusion that “coaches don’t always work” seems more than a little harsh on Duncan Fletcher and his backroom staff considering the limited time and opportunity they have had to work with their Indian charges.
Predictably, the Indian press haven’t pulled any punches when it comes to analysing their team’s performance. The Times of India labelled the series a “crying shame” and lambasted the BCCI (“BCCI stands for Board of Control for Cricket in India. It could even be referred to as Bombastic, Callous, Chaotic and Incorrigible”) before interviewing an array of former Indian greats as to where their side could go from here.
“Indian players did not play as a team. I am not trying to blame anybody but I think they played too much cricket,” argued Kapil Dev during his interview. “Within four days of winning the World Cup you play IPL they then travel to West Indies for a tour and then from there to England. I think our players were going through the motions more than their love for the game.”
The Mid Day newspaper adopted a similar line, publishing an image of a gravestone that read “R.I.P. Indian Cricket: In Affectionate Remembrance Of Indian Cricket Which Died At The Oval On 22 August, 2011” before going on to state: “Sure, there were a couple of questionable umpiring decisions and English brilliance came to the fore once again, but the fact that seven wickets fell for just 21 runs proved that Dhoni’s men didn’t have the bottle for the fight.”
Meanwhile, back at in the UK, Jonathan Agnew used his BBC column to single out Stuart Broad as one of England’s key performers and explains that England’s performance during this series should be accorded the respect it deserves.
“Broad really epitomises the fighting spirit among the bowlers who were all over the India batsmen in every innings.
“I talked to umpire Rod Tucker on Sunday and he singled out Broad. He said this bloke is bowling absolutely unbelievably, at good pace, hitting the bat hard.
“The scale of England’s achievement is summed up in this statistic – this is only the seventh time in Test history that there has been a whitewash in a series of four matches or more.”