Increasingly, visiting teams seem to be doing better than before on their visits to the subcontinent, which the home teams once considered as their bastion. South Africa have all but defeated Pakistan at home in Tests, Australia have got the better of India and perhaps most surprisingly, England have thoroughly defeated Sri Lanka in ODIs. I wonder if modern visiting players are getting used to subcontinental conditions and wickets because of the amount of cricket played these days.

Could be,when i was growing up a visit to somewhere like India only happened about every 6 years but now teams are going there far more regularly because of the extra one day competitions,players use experience picked up on previous visits to help them where as in the past most of the side would be going there for the first time.

Then again England have a few players visiting Sri Lanka for the first time and it hasn't hindered them so i could be talking gobbledeegook as usual.

This is more of a question than an answer, but could it be that there's a bit of a standardisation of pitches going on. Certainly in the past, you'd know what pitch you were going to get if you went to different places, but is that still the same. I ask the question as during the recent Ashes, there was discussion that the WACA had lost a lot of its characteristic pace and that the SCG was no longer the spinner's Australian paradise.

Could the same be happening elsewhere in the world? Are people now losing the benefit of preparing their home pitches to suit home bowlers?

You could be right. India recently scored 664 in England and won the test series, something not usual for them on tour. I think teams are getting used to each others 'home' wickets and this can only be a good thing for Tests because it reduces predictability and makes the matches more open.

Non sub continant players these days are a lot fitter than ever and this improved fitness slows down the fatigue that the conditions in India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan causes.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Australia are exceptionally professional in all areas these days.. and the benefits on sub-continental tours show up on many fronts.

1. Fitness (and general preparation for long innings in debilitating heat.

2. Diet (including rehydration and basics of avoiding diarrhea.

3. Fielding (in which the gulf seperating Inzi and Ponting says it all).

4. Coaching (especially in reverse swing, now universally understood).

5. Technology (bats that swing the game the batsmen's way).

6. Preparation for play (video analysis, coaching to percentages, etc).

That little lot has seen the odds turn against sub-continental sides.

I dont think that Australia are anywhere ahead of other sides in that factor. Englands 2005 Ashes campaign was probably the best prepared series by the English. Cricket looks very basic but the work that goes on behind the scenes is the difference.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Hardly a gulf Rachael. Inzi is actually a very good slip catcher, and given that's where he mostly fields in Tests, his fielding is seldom an issue. In any case, he has inherited chronic back trouble, so hardly a fair comparison - probably much more appropriate to compare Ponting with Dravid, SRT or YK, and in those comparisons, there's not much in it.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

If it was all about professionalism, and the Aussies/English having more of it, then why did India have such success in the test series in England?

This is another reason to wonder if the levelling of the playing field is literally the case - pitches are becoming too generic - too similar across the disparate places in the world.

I don't remember the subcontinent ever being that much of a fortress. Speaking for Pakistan I seem to remember them having many home defeats (SA won there in 98 - did they not lose three home series on the trot when Zimbabwe went there and won?) and even England won there in 2001 (as well as in Sri Lanka). In the 80s before Kumble arrived for India, their home form was nothing special. The West Indies hammered them there in 83 and even Gower's men went there and won in 84-5. A lot has been made about Australia's innabiity to win in India (the final curtain) and I think the fortress tag could have been born from that (even though South Africa comfortably won there in 2000). Without Kumble, India will struggle to win test series at home again and the same can be said for Sri Lanka without Murali.