Cricket Betting Site Betway

View Poll Results: Who will win?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • England

    8 20.51%
  • Australia

    25 64.10%
  • Draw (crims retain)

    6 15.38%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 119
Like Tree16Likes

Thread: 4th thread - who's going to win?

  1. #76
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas View Post
    To be honest I am probably a lot more optimistic than I probably should be but I really like this England team, just a lot of players that I like in it. The fact that so many people are desperate to moan at them at any given opportunity just makes that stronger.
    I don't think many people are desperate to moan at them. I don't blame them as individuals for not being good enough to play Test Cricket. It's not as if (KP aside) there are a string of better quality players who are not being selected.

  2. #77
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson View Post
    I don't think many people are desperate to moan at them. I don't blame them as individuals for not being good enough to play Test Cricket. It's not as if (KP aside) there are a string of better quality players who are not being selected.
    What do you think is the cause of the lack of talent coming through, as you see it?

  3. #78
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    10,275
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    What do you think is the cause of the lack of talent coming through, as you see it?
    Absolutely no idea. In my time of watching County Cricket has never produced anything other than the occasional strong XI. The 2005 side was a strong side but it was fleeting and there wasn't another group of unlucky players being left out. It just seems at the moment there's an extraordinary lack of quality. To have an XI where half of them are unproven is quite worrying - especially so when some of the established players are in poor form.

  4. #79
    Hall of Fame Member Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Brum
    Posts
    16,105
    A lot of them are unproven because we just had a whole lot of good players retire in the last few years and quite a few of the new players have done pretty well. The real problem for England over the last couple of years has been that so many of the previous generation, which had been genuinely good for a while, have played really badly.

    Of course you are right, England just generally are not a great side, has been like that basically forever.


  5. #80
    International Coach wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas View Post
    A lot of them are unproven because we just had a whole lot of good players retire in the last few years and quite a few of the new players have done pretty well. The real problem for England over the last couple of years has been that so many of the previous generation, which had been genuinely good for a while, have played really badly.
    And I'd like to think that's been my main gripe in recent times. It wouldn't be hard to find posts where I've moaned about Bell, or suggested that Broad and Anderson aren't all they're cracked up to be, but I think you'd struggle to find posts where I've complained about the newbies. Possibly Moeen's form this summer, and whether he should be in the side, but that's about it. If people struggle with someone's objective view being 4 or 5 tests to Aus this summer, then that's their problem. Saves me some of the disappointment if that's what happens, and I end up being all the happier if they prove me wrong.

  6. #81
    International Coach wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson View Post
    Absolutely no idea. In my time of watching County Cricket has never produced anything other than the occasional strong XI. The 2005 side was a strong side but it was fleeting and there wasn't another group of unlucky players being left out. It just seems at the moment there's an extraordinary lack of quality.
    And that's the real worry. The question that should be addressed is why there's been such a decline in the quality of quicks coming through. You could look back as far as the mid-1990's and list 3 or 4 at any time who were capable of turning in decent test match performances. Not world class, but pretty serviceable. That production line seemed to last until a couple of years ago, and now none of us have a clue who should replace Anderson and Broad when they go, or even who should partner them if Wood doesn't end up being good enough.

    My pet theory is that things changed when we doubled the number of group games in the 2020 cup, and the whole emphasis of the season seemed to change. One of KP's articles that got posted the other day actually made some pretty telling points about the domestic structure, but they were rather lost in the row over his comments about Ballance in the other article.

  7. #82
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    under
    Posts
    230
    I don't think England ever got particularly good, even in 2010-12. Australia got really, really bad for a while there after the India debacle of 2008, and English cricket has been all about Ashes results. Need only look at Broad's twitter account to get a picture of how the players think. "English cricketer. 3x Ashes winner," - it's tunnel vision. Australia lost to all manner of sides from 2009 through to 2013. You ask players to stop playing their natural game and deny their instincts, you end up with a team that won't give you anything. England put a solid XI together through that time, but that they didn't once beat South Africa or even look like winning a world cup would suggest that they never got particularly strong.

    It didn't help having a success-starved UK media. The first hint of consistent cricket and they were falling over themselves lavishing praise upon Flower and his charges. They buzzed as if he had delivered world domination, but when you look back, the self-professed peak identified by Andrew Strauss a few years ago was "being above Australia in all three forms of the game." Nevermind that Australia were mid-table. I'm telling you, they had destination disease.

    It's fair to say the county system hasn't produced a dominant side in modern cricket. Mind you neither has India's domestic system - and we can talk for hours about the shortcomings they have can't we?

  8. #83
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    Respect to GIMP for the "4th thread" reference btw
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  9. #84
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14,826
    Quote Originally Posted by 3703 View Post
    I don't think England ever got particularly good, even in 2010-12. Australia got really, really bad for a while there after the India debacle of 2008, and English cricket has been all about Ashes results. Need only look at Broad's twitter account to get a picture of how the players think. "English cricketer. 3x Ashes winner," - it's tunnel vision. Australia lost to all manner of sides from 2009 through to 2013. You ask players to stop playing their natural game and deny their instincts, you end up with a team that won't give you anything. England put a solid XI together through that time, but that they didn't once beat South Africa or even look like winning a world cup would suggest that they never got particularly strong.

    It didn't help having a success-starved UK media. The first hint of consistent cricket and they were falling over themselves lavishing praise upon Flower and his charges. They buzzed as if he had delivered world domination, but when you look back, the self-professed peak identified by Andrew Strauss a few years ago was "being above Australia in all three forms of the game." Nevermind that Australia were mid-table. I'm telling you, they had destination disease.

    It's fair to say the county system hasn't produced a dominant side in modern cricket. Mind you neither has India's domestic system - and we can talk for hours about the shortcomings they have can't we?
    England were good. They were the second best side in the world, behind South Africa, and it was even close between those two for a wee while.

    Broad and Anderson were up there with the best new ball pairs. Tremlett and Finn were actually taking wickets. Swann was one of the best spinners. Cook was going to overtake Sachin. Trott could not be got out. Pietersen could turn games singlehandedly. Prior was one of the best keeper-bats. And Ian Bell did his downhill skiing thing.

    They won a series in India against a pretty good side in Indian conditions. Won the Ashes obviously. Pakistan exposed them I suppose but Pakistan does that to everyone.

    I do agree that they should stop comparing themselves to Australia.

  10. #85
    International Coach Bahnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wigton Unzud
    Posts
    14,003
    Yeah, the 2012 series was closer than the 2-0 scoreline suggests (though having said that, the 1-1 scoreline in the 2010 series in SA badly flattered England, so I guess you gotta take the rough with the smooth). They were also the better rounded side thanks to Swann, which is why England have won a series in India while SA haven't (though to be fair to the Saffers, I can't remember when the last time was that they toured there).

    Not giving England much of a show in this series - too many players under form clouds, and too many just not tested against the kinda fire that's on it's way. Do think Australia will collapse a few times, but I just don't England will have the all round class to capitalise and beat such a strong Aussie side.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I can think of a list of Sydney Grade posters who would contribute a better average post than Bahnz.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloakey View Post
    Darlingface
    Maow like no one can hear you maowing.

  11. #86
    Evil Scotsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    away from here
    Posts
    31,130
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    England were good. They were the second best side in the world, behind South Africa, and it was even close between those two for a wee while.

    Broad and Anderson were up there with the best new ball pairs. Tremlett and Finn were actually taking wickets. Swann was one of the best spinners. Cook was going to overtake Sachin. Trott could not be got out. Pietersen could turn games singlehandedly. Prior was one of the best keeper-bats. And Ian Bell did his downhill skiing thing.

    They won a series in India against a pretty good side in Indian conditions. Won the Ashes obviously. Pakistan exposed them I suppose but Pakistan does that to everyone.

    I do agree that they should stop comparing themselves to Australia.
    Nope.

    England's side was better, and better balanced than South Africa's, in that period.

  12. #87
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    Nope.

    England's side was better, and better balanced than South Africa's, in that period.
    well, South Africa did beat them in England. You can argue that they were better, sure, I'm just responding to the claim that they weren't that good. They were 2nd best in the world by most people's reckoning.

  13. #88
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,569
    It's funny, I think straight after the Indian series (2011 at home), they were doubtlessly number one in the world, as India had been ranked top prior to that series, and they had recently performed well away from home against SA (from memory).

    But straight after that they had the 3-0 loss to Pakistan in UAE, which really pulled them back to the pack in neutrals' eyes, and made it arguable again.

  14. #89
    Request Your Custom Title Now!
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not really needed on CW
    Posts
    30,754
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    Nope.

    England's side was better, and better balanced than South Africa's, in that period.
    nope

  15. #90
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
    nope
    Nah through 2011 we were the best in the world. We never sustained it because Swann's decline started around the summer of 2012, we never solved the sixth batsman dilemma, bowling depth evaporated, KP saga, Strauss retiring

    But before all that ****. Any world XI from circa 11 would be rammed with England players:
    Cook, Trott, Swann, Anderson, Prior shoo-ins at the time
    Bell, Pietersen, Broad had cases too

    Basically what jack said

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The put-down thread
    By Burgey in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-05-2017, 04:44 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 22-04-2014, 06:03 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-04-2013, 02:49 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19-05-2007, 05:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •