Last edited by Howe_zat; 12-06-2011 at 10:57 AM.
"Your averages, captain, coaches and players can probably survive incompetence over a relatively short series, so if youíre going to be rubbish, make sure itís against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand or someone."
"He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."RIP CraigosKnowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
As has already been suggested they were probably number 1 after winning in Aus in 1971. But I think India took over for a while after winning in England in 1971 and the WI around the same time. Again, everyone would have known that SA were actually the best side in the world.
The last time they were unquestionably the best test side in the world was around 1955-1958.
Last edited by Howe_zat; 12-06-2011 at 11:12 AM.
Ok. Let me try to understand this, England who conceded 400 to SL in the early part of the summer will roll over India eh? funny some of them saying 3-0.
Sri Lankans are supposedly a weak batting unit compared to India and less said about the bowling the better. Yes the last session in Cardiff was just freak. The whole premise is based on England beating a weakend Aussie side and SL in the first Test. They did not even manage to beat SA in SA.
An rejuvanated Indian side with Tendulkar, Sewag and Gambhir coming back and the bowlers if they select the right combo will beat England in England and this is during the latter part of the summer where India have historically done well. I will say 2-1 for India or a 1-1 result. It's highly unlikely India will lose this series.
It's widely acknowledged that the Sri Lankans have a very good top 5, and batted reasonably well in the first innings on two rather flat wickets. The fact that England's bowling performance at Lord's was their worst in a year and they still got a first-innings lead and a winning position isn't to be sniffed at. Conceding 400 in the first innings is obviously not ideal but you can still win if you can beat that. India have been doing it that way for years.
The last session at Cardiff was freakish but it wasn't a one-off. England have bowled out sides for under 100 5 times in the last year, and every side they've played against since mid-2009 have found themselves all out for under 150 at least once.
What's this "weakened" Australia side? It was the Ashes for crying out loud. No-ones claiming they're as good as they were a few years ago, but come on, India have never won in Australia. And England absolutely schooled them over there. Got to be worth something.
As for beating SA in SA, well, neither did India. It's not easy. England did hammer them by an innings in one match, though. And they've improved since then.
If you think India are too good to lose in England, fair enough. No reason to deny they've got a formidable team, and I think it'll be close.
But I've no idea why you feel the need to rubbish everything England have achieved over the last couple of years. It's been damn impressive.
Last edited by Howe_zat; 13-06-2011 at 05:47 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)