We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
All Time Test XI:
Openers: S.Gavaskar V.Sehwag Middle Order: V.Richards S.Tendulkar B.Lara All Rounders: G.Sobers I Khan (C) WK: A.Gilchrist Bowlers: W.Akram M.Marshall M.Muralitharan
All Time ODI XI:
WK: A.Gilchrist S.Tendulkar V.Richards R. Ponting M. Dhoni M. Bevan Allrounder: K.Dev Bowlers: W.Akram J. Garner M.Muralitharan G. McGrath
They could have won it 2-1.
India could have won 8-0 in the last eight Test matches if only one more batsman had scored more runs IMO.
Like 500 more per game. But it's possible.
can't understand where this 2-1 figure comes up. Pakistan dominated the first test and dominated the 3rd 2nd innings onwards which is like 75% of the match at best they could have won the 2nd but usually when you choke I don't count that as unlucky. At very best England could have lost 2-1 but I still feel 3-0 is a just scoreline.
Don't think anyone's arguing otherwise tbf.
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
get ready for a broken ****in' arm
Regardless of whether he is straightening his arm more than 15 degrees or not, the evidence is that you would be going out and hunting for kids with bent arms if you were in charge of developing cricketers for a country. There seems to be a natural advantage there too big to ignore.
Not that I am suggesting going out and breaking kid's arms, mind you.
Last edited by Debris; 10-02-2012 at 12:20 AM.
Look, England deservedly lost 3-0 because the Pakistani bowlers owned our batsmen throughout the series. However, in the 2nd Test, England had a 4th innings target of 145. In the 3rd Test, we bowled out Pakistan for 99 on the first day. Those are scenarios where you'd expect teams to win on the vast majority of occasions - I can't figure out how to fiddle with statsguru to get some numbers regarding how often a team successfully chases down a total of <150, but Pakistan being the first team in 105 years to win a Test after failing to make 100 in the first innings of a Test match tells you all you need to know about whether England should have won the 3rd Test.
That is a million miles away from your 'if only India's batsmen could have collectively scored 500 more runs in each test' scenario, in which you've also conveniently forgotten how hopeless India's bowling was in 7 out of the 8 Tests in question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)