Instances of series favorites being whitewashed?

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Jono

No they were underdogs for the series and underdogs before every individual match.

You're talking odds, right?

[Arachnodouche]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Aus were favorites.

revisionism. I think a lot of Indian fans thought they actually had a chance of winning in Aus this winter. Especially after the Aussie batting crumbling every other innings.

[fredfertang]

England, on the back of three successive Ashes wins and not having lost a series anywhere for the best part of a decade, were expected to beat Australia in 1958/59, but lost 4-0 with one draw - strange parallel with the current series actually

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Arachnodouche

revisionism. I think a lot of Indian fans thought they actually had a chance of winning in Aus this winter. Especially after the Aussie batting crumbling every other innings.

We're talking about objective odds - of course fans are going to be subjective. Hell, I thought we'd have a good shot at winning in England (proved hilariously wrong), but clearly the bookies (you know people who would actually lose $$ by being wrong) thought England were.

How is this revisionism? You're going to find bangladesh fans who think they can win in Australia if you look hard enough - that's part of being a fan. I think we all know that Indian fans were massively dissapointed at how India did in Australia - clearly that's not in question.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Burgey

You're talking odds, right?

Ya

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

You're going to find bangladesh fans who think they can win in Australia if you look hard enough - that's part of being a fan. I think we all know that Indian fans were massively dissapointed at how India did in Australia - clearly that's not in question.

yep....IIRC the bangladeshi fans said that "they would eat Ajmal alive" in the Pak-Bangers series and win 2-0

[ganeshran]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

England, on the back of three successive Ashes wins and not having lost a series anywhere for the best part of a decade, were expected to beat Australia in 1958/59, but lost 4-0 with one draw - strange parallel with the current series actually

Were Engand the favorites in the series against the Windies when Greig said " I will make them grovel". IIRC that series was a whitewash too

[Arachnodouche]

no, i think most "reasonable" Indian cricket followers felt that the debacle in England could have been just a blip. That Sachin and Laxman would surely pile it on against their old favorites. Also, seeing how green the Australian bowling was, and the fact that they'd just lost to NZ....you'd have had to be some skeptic to think we were outright underdogs.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Arachnodouche

no, i think most "reasonable" Indian cricket followers felt that the debacle in England could have been just a blip. That Sachin and Laxman would surely pile it on against their old favorites. Also, seeing how green the Australian bowling was, and the fact that they'd just lost to NZ....you'd have had to be some skeptic to think we were outright underdogs.

I am not sure about your point. I thought we had a chance in Australia too, at least to win a Test or two.

Are you saying 'reasonable' Indian cricket followers are more objective in judging their chances than the bookies who make a living out of it?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by ganeshran

Were Engand the favorites in the series against the Windies when Greig said " I will make them grovel". IIRC that series was a whitewash too

That was 3-0 with two draws - Greigy thought we were favourites, obviously, and the WIndies had just been on the wrong end of a thumping in Australia, but for those who inhabited the real world it was generally accepted that Greig was talking bollocks from the minute he made his ill advised grovel comment

[HeathDavisSpeed]

From the view point of a neutral, I feel this series was a lot closer than the scoreline would suggest. England were certainly in the 2nd and 3rd tests for quite a long period. I'd wager there have been considerably worse thrashings (even for favourites if I could be bothered thinking) where one or two tests have been drawn due to rain.

[ganeshran]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

That was 3-0 with two draws - Greigy thought we were favourites, obviously, and the WIndies had just been on the wrong end of a thumping in Australia, but for those who inhabited the real world it was generally accepted that Greig was talking bollocks from the minute he made his ill advised grovel comment

Thanks.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed

From the view point of a neutral, I feel this series was a lot closer than the scoreline would suggest. England were certainly in the 2nd and 3rd tests for quite a long period. I'd wager there have been considerably worse thrashings (even for favourites if I could be bothered thinking) where one or two tests have been drawn due to rain.

Yea, I am not talking about the worst defeats - just whitewashed when favorites. I'm sure there have been instances of the favorites losing worse, but due to whatever reason (rain, maybe a last minute partnership), the final scoreline wasn't as bad.

And even when underdogs, I think many would say their loss in 06-07 was 'worse' even though Australia were the favorites.

[The Sean]

Did Australia go to South Africa as favourites in 1970? I think we might have - SA hadn't played a Test for several years and we'd just won in India, something it would take us decades to repeat.

[Xuhaib]

weren't some of SA-Aus encounters during the early 00's billed up as the unoffical world test championship only for Australia to steam roll them in every game. I know SA were not favorites but for a period in early 00's they were seen as the only side capable to challenge Aus for the top crown but were beaten black n blue when they had head to head meetings.