The Ashes - For the neutrals

[FaaipDeOiad]

man for man, IND is still a superior side to ENG in my view.

India really only have five world class players on recent performances, in Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag Harbhajan and Kumble. Laxman is a great player but is woefully out of form, Ganguly and Ghambir are decent but nothing special, and Zaheer and Pathan are way too inconsistent at this time. England at least have a well-rounded team that doesn't have players of the Tendulkar/Dravid class but can compete as an XI without having anybody who is clearly not of the same class as the others.

 

[chaminda_00]

India really only have five world class players on recent performances, in Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag Harbhajan and Kumble. Laxman is a great player but is woefully out of form, Ganguly and Ghambir are decent but nothing special, and Zaheer and Pathan are way too inconsistent at this time. England at least have a well-rounded team that doesn't have players of the Tendulkar/Dravid class but can compete as an XI without having anybody who is clearly not of the same class as the others.

Im sure most english guys would say that Flintoff is at the same level of Dravid and Shewag.

 

[Blaze]

Who cares whos better out of England and India, thats not what this thread is about

 

[Deja moo]

Im sure most english guys would say that Flintoff is at the same level of Dravid and Shewag.

yeah right..

BTW England over India for me, and Australia to win the Ashes comfortably.

 

[chaminda_00]

BTW i think Australia will win the Ashes comfortable 3-1 my guess.

 

[Kweek]

ur not neutral!
i think it will be a very interesting series thats for sure, when the ashes are played im in england so will watch telly a lot i really hope england will win this one, as im a fan :-) i never really liked Australia they are good and play good cricket but never really liked em..dunno why i say 2-1 to england with 2 tests drawn

 

[SJS]

Its not going to happen but I would like England to win.

It will mean a great series for sure PLUS it can only be good for world cricket.

 

[_Ed_]

I really don't mind who wins. Would like it to be a competitive series though. Hope I'll be able to watch a lot of it, will be in England in late June/early July so hopefully will be able to catch some live instead of the lame highlights packages we get in NZ.

 

[chaminda_00]

ur not neutral!
i think it will be a very interesting series thats for sure, when the ashes are played im in england so will watch telly a lot i really hope england will win this one, as im a fan :-) i never really liked Australia they are good and play good cricket but never really liked em..dunno why i say 2-1 to england with 2 tests drawn

Well im not Australian or English so what does make me neutral i think

 

[Nate]

I know Im not neutral, but I say 3-0 to Aussies.

 

[Beleg]

Whoever plays better should win.

 

[C_C]

India really only have five world class players on recent performances, in Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag Harbhajan and Kumble. Laxman is a great player but is woefully out of form, Ganguly and Ghambir are decent but nothing special, and Zaheer and Pathan are way too inconsistent at this time. England at least have a well-rounded team that doesn't have players of the Tendulkar/Dravid class but can compete as an XI without having anybody who is clearly not of the same class as the others.

agreed mostly to what you said - IND are 'superstar heavy' while ENG are a well oiled machine who are very well rounded....

I just dont think they are as good as IND (marginally mind you) is because i dont think this ENG side has what it takes to compete with the best in the world(OZ).... given Vaughan since captaincy, i dont expect him to do anything worthwhile against OZ and Thorpe apart(who i think is unquestionably ENG's best batsman) i dont think any of their batsmen will manage to do well against OZ in the way Tendy,Dravid,Laxman have done over the years and recently,Sehwag....also dont think Flintoff/Harmison/Hoggard would have anywhere close to the success Kumble/Harbhajan have had.....

i think the ENG-IND situation is a bit like Oilers-Toronto Maple Leafs(in hockey terms) going on...Oilers the better balanced team, Maple leafs with 'big names' where Oilers competes extremely well against the lesser teams and comes up short against the top teams, the Maple Leafs screw up more against lesser teams but against the best of the best they play much better to the Oilers..

and i have the same opinion in the Oilers-Maple Leafs case (though i hate the maple leafs, mind you)...
I guess in Hockey, we have the luxury of seeing a ICC test-championship style format ( the regular season which is home-away pts based) as well as the world cups style knockout competition(playoffs) for the final prize....
Well guess what ? For the last few seasons(well not this season-its lockout season now) the Oilers have consistently finished with more pts than the Maple Leafs in the regular season but have been consistently KO-ed earlier in the playoffs....

I guess thats why i rate performance against the best disproportionately...

 

[Dasa]

I'd like to see England win, but I doubt that'll happen.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I just dont think they are as good as IND (marginally mind you) is because i dont think this ENG side has what it takes to compete with the best in the world(OZ).... given Vaughan since captaincy, i dont expect him to do anything worthwhile against OZ and Thorpe apart(who i think is unquestionably ENG's best batsman) i dont think any of their batsmen will manage to do well against OZ in the way Tendy,Dravid,Laxman have done over the years and recently,Sehwag....also dont think Flintoff/Harmison/Hoggard would have anywhere close to the success Kumble/Harbhajan have had.....

I think to a certain degree India's ability to compete with Australia is overblown by a few out of the ordinary performances. Basically, India would have lost in 2001 if it was not for a once-in-a-lifetime partership, and India thrived in 2003 on flat wickets not having to face McGrath and Warne. India played out of their skins in those series, and it wasn't in my view representative of what would happen most of the time. Australia really beat them fairly comfortably in 2004. I think England on their day are just as capable of getting close to Australia as India are, they just need a few things to go their way, be it injury or a spectacular individual performance or two. I think Harmison and Flintoff will be able to trouble the Australian top order if they bowl at their best, and that their batting is capable enough to post big scores if a player or two stand up and play a important knocks like Vaughan did in 2003.

Anyway, the difference with India is really that they don't often perform at all outside of the sub-continent, which is a huge weakness in my view. Until they start winning series elsewhere, they can't lay claim to 2nd place.

 

[psxpro]

OK this is england vs aus why did india come into it?
They shouldn't they aren't good enough bro.
India are clearly not as good as england, you can look man for man as much as you want but its still a team game and apart from a good series in Aussie and a series win over pakistan they have been average. where as england have won every Test series Recently.

 

[C_C]

dude its not a question of one series or two....its for one, a question over several series and how each match has been contested.

since the mid 90s, IND has competed very well with the OZ- better than any other team that is.

in 1996, IND won the one off test vs OZ comfortably...neither side were full strength...aussies were missing warne and ind were missing their spearhead in Srinath....so fair dinkum win.

in 1998, IND again won the series comfortably 2-1...OZ were missing McGrath winning the dead rubber

in 99/200 OZ completely whitewashed IN 3-0 in OZ and completely outplayed them. this was full strength either side.

in 2001 an understrength IND (they were missing Kumble) beat OZ 2-1 in that epic series...bear in mind that OZ were full strength

in 2004 IND drew 1-1 in OZ while having the better of the contest ( outta the two draws, one was inconclusive but the other IND held the firm advantage) with a second OZ bowling unit

in 2004 return visit, OZ defeated IND 2-1 with full strength matchup from both sides with the drawn match poised in IND's favour ( 200 to chase, all wickets in hand).

So over the last 10 years, IND-OZ have played 18 matches, OZ winning 8, IND winning 7 with 3 draws.

That is the best record any team has against OZ over that period by a comfortable margin.
Most matches between IND and OZ have been highly competitive with OZ beating a full sttrength IND side twice and IND beating a fullstrength OZ side once...
I agree that full strength OZ side is better than IND and the OZ are a much better team overall.... but i take exception to your comments that it is overblown.... especially considering that the english have failed to win anything but dead rubber games since 97 or so i believe.
And i know the discomfort you have on this...i notice it amongst the windians when they talk of the pak team from the late 70s to early 90s.... but hey-its okay...no team smashes every single team on the block utterly....WI had a huge tussle with PAK, AUS have one with IND.

Anyway, the difference with India is really that they don't often perform at all outside of the sub-continent, which is a huge weakness in my view. Until they start winning series elsewhere, they can't lay claim to 2nd place.

And ENG dont perform at all IN the subcontinent and that is a huge weakness in my view..until they start winning series in the subcontinent(only two series win the subcontinent in the last 20 years), they cant lay claim to 2nd place place.
Hows that for fair dinkum ?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Seriously how much blind patriotism must there be to think India are better than England?!? They drew with Pakistan, they convincingly lost to Australia, they lost in NZ and only drew at home to them, drew in England when England were far weaker than now, lost in WI. India are at best a 50/50 toss up against most teams.

 

[C_C]

Seriously how much blind patriotism must there be to think India are better than England?!? They drew with Pakistan, they convincingly lost to Australia, they lost in NZ and only drew at home to them, drew in England when England were far weaker than now, lost in WI. India are at best a 50/50 toss up against most teams.

Did you read my initial post ?
I said that IND are better against the best of the best, ENG against the rest.... and i give disproportionate weight against the best.....and yes, IND lost convincingly to OZ last series....but ENG have made a habit of losing a LOT more convincingly....and ENG had almost the same players against IND.... with some players who are/were better than the current ENG replacements - stewart for example.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

India have more than matched Australia in the last decade in the subcontinent, yes. However Australia have an obvious weakness playing there and also lost to Sri Lanka and Pakistan, it is only just recently when Australia have reached their absolute peak as a side - from 1999 to present, after the transition period failures while Steve Waugh took over - that they have began to play better in the subcontinent. During that time they have played India four times for two series wins, one loss and a draw.

Now, keep in mind that I am not trying to actually take anything away from the Indian side for their teriffic performances against Australia. Laxman and Harbhajan were simply brilliant in 2001 and dominated a formiddable side and carried India from a certain series loss to a victory. In 2003 the Indian batting lineup was unstoppable and they were well supported by Kumble, and they had the better by a fair margin of a drawn series. However, I don't think these results are particularly representative of the comparitive strength of the sides, or of what could be expected from India if they were to face Australia more often.

And furthermore, I think England are capable of the same sort of out-of-their-skin performances against Australia, if things go their way with regard to injuries, conditions and spectacular individual efforts.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Did you read my initial post ?
I said that IND are better against the best of the best, ENG against the rest.... and i give disproportionate weight against the best.....and yes, IND lost convincingly to OZ last series....but ENG have made a habit of losing a LOT more convincingly....and ENG had almost the same players against IND.... with some players who are/were better than the current ENG replacements - stewart for example.

I skimmed it, there are plenty of times when you have said or implied in other posts "I just dont think they are as good as IND". India got thoroughly outplayed against Australia, so it's doubtful you can say India are any better against Australia than England will be - England would have to comprehensively lose the first 3 Tests to be worse than India were. As for previous Ashes habits, the previous England teams weren't anywhere near as good as the current England side - they also all played attritional cricket which doesn't work against teams like Australia.