How would you evaluate the performances of the four teams in the recently concluded test series ?

Question

India vs SL

Eng vs SA

Answer 1

india vs sri lanka was a great series, very poised and fairly even series.

England vs south africa was a little one sided, even though england were playing at home.

Answer 2

Rank 1:- South Africa

Terrific performance away from home. Especially the came back in the first test to draw and the convincing performance in second test. And the win in the third test was another good performance

Rank 2:- Sri Lanka

Good convincing performance at home. Planned well against the Big-4 and executed it perfectly. Strength was the spin department and this time it is not Muralitharan. Pace attack was not convincing. Problems with Opening pair.

Rank 3:- India

A below average performance. The Big-5 let India down. Otherwise there was  no problems. Opening pair has performed commendably well. Ishant bowled well. Harbhajan's bowling was acceptable. Fielding is as weak as ever. And Wicketkeepers added to the woes.

Rank 4:- England

Lost a series at home. After the first Innings of First test, England was outplayed and outperformed by South Africa except for the 4th test. Only thing happened is two captains lost their job. The Silver lining is KP has won his first test as captain.  

Answer 3

SA was best  

Answer 4

Every user above me CLEARLY didnt watch the England vs South Africa series.

If you actually watched the series, you would see that the series wasnt "one sided" South Africa didnt outplay and outclass England for the whole series. The series infact at times was as even and exciting as The Ashes.

England outplayed South Africa in the 1st test, but they lacked the killer instinct to bowl South Africa out. The Lords pitch didnt help, it was so slow it did nothing for the seamers on the 4th & 5th days.

South Africa outplayed England in the 2nd test, BUT South Africa got very lucky. England batted in the only time in the match when the conditions favoured the bowlers heavily. England played some rash strokes and lost.

The 3rd test was an awesome spectacle, and one of the most even test matches i have ever seen, the match went both ways, South Africa were in control for the 1st couple of days, but then England came back and put themselves in a great position. England then had South Africa 97-4 chasing 284, but once again England just didnt have the killer instinct to bowl South Africa out.

The 4th test showed what England could do with a bit of firepower, England were in control for the whole test match, but to be fair South Africa had already won the series so they played far more rash strokes than before (Especially Ashwell Prince)

So if England dominated the 1st and 4th test, and the 3rd test was even. How was the series a one-sided affair?? Clearly the users above me didnt watch the matches, but i do know they looked at the scorecards on cricinfo and pretended that they watched the match, because if you watched the series you would see that you have made some stupid comments

South Africa- The played with control and displine, they know what to do to win a test match. There batsmen all contributed to the side, and there bowlers all looked dangerous at times. South Africa were the better team ONLY because they had the killer instinct (either) with bat or ball to win a test match.

Sri Lanka- They were always ahead of India, they knew what ever trouble they were in, they knew Murali and Mendis could get them out. Sri Lanka won the series comfortably (as they do against any team at home) Infact if Sehwag had never shown up in the 2nd test then Sri Lanka would have won the series 3-0.

India- Lackluster in most departments, the key to winning in Sri Lanka is getting big first innings totals, they looked clueless when Murali and Mendis bowled, Gambhir and Sehwag shined, but only cameos from the big 4 wasnt enough, Sri Lanka are almost unbeatble at home and it showed

England- Lacked the killer instinct until the 4th test, they got themself in positions to win 3 out of 4 of the test matches, but there bowlers just couldnt get the wickets to win the match. There batsmen needed more consistency too, England once again have relied heavily Kevin Pietersen. South Africa's disipline won them the series

Answer 5

Srilankan bowled exceptionally well. they look like unbeatable in home ground even malinga is missing.. Ind back really well in 2nd test.. if india  could bat more 30 minutes in last day of 3rd test the result will ba a draw... but india not played as bad...

England out class by SA.. even they win the last ..

Answer 6

India - dipping and losing confidence. They need to regroup and get back some form. Also some changes need to occur in the Indian team.

Sri Lanka - Mendis is obviously a huge boost. Coming up the rankings which is good for them. They are becoming really competitive and will be a force to be reckoned with!

England - Didn't play all that well in their series (apart from the last game). Pietersen as captain will also give a huge boost to the rest of the team as he's the in form batsman. A few other batsmen found some form too and their bowlers are bowling magnificiently. Watch out Australia for the Ashes!

SA - Such a strong team. Won the series quite convincingly. Will be a tough opponent for all the team and a real World Cup contender. Greame Smith is such a good captain!

Answer 7

South Africa: Won the series fairly comfortably, as expected.

England: Proved that they are not good enough yet to match the best teams as they lack consistency. Had their moments, but never demonstrated an ability to step up to the next level.

India: Very poorly prepared. Sadly, this is history repeating itself. The last time India challenged Australia for top spot, they lost impetus and had to rebuild

Sri Lanka: Played well, but I think they are riding their luck and papering over the cracks. Were it not for Murali and Mendis, their attack would have been almost non-existent.