• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England vs India

BengalCat

Cricket Spectator
Most ppl will agree with me that England's target of 270 was a good one.To say that Thorpe/Vaughan was missed is just an excuse and an attempt to justify England's defeat.

England lost because their bowling attack is one of the lousiest in the world.The way India batted, India would even had chased a target of 325(like they did in Natwest Final).England were outplayed by a better team, if England can't defend totals like 325 or 270 then something is definately wrong with them.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Right, you've misunderstood me here.

By England being "under par", what I meant was the team playing badly.

As for "when will the good performance come" - four wins in eleven suggests four good(ish) games. Like when India were bowled out for 165 in the NatWest.
 
Yeah, but ever since then its been a horrifying story for England, far from bowling out India, they have been hammered by Indian batters to all part of the grounds.

Englnd fan can feel happy on those 4 wins, afterall the victory for England doesnt come that often:lol:
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
yeah

Like when India were bowled out for 165 in the NatWest.
Let's wait for the next time there's a 32 over match between India and England, in a no-consequence match with India choosing to experiment :D

India has struck a really good balance now, and from here on they need to work on consistency. The team is well set, and every player knows his position very well. There is one slot in the batting lineup where there's scope for substitution - VVS/Mongia- but even there the ask is very clear: pick the batsman in form. There is no ambiguity of whether to pick a bits and pieces player, or another bowler etc.

Dravid doesn't even need to worry about his wicketkeeping performances in Lanka. He'll have a much easier time in the World Cup, where seamers will be in play.

As for England, they still don't know their team. At this rate they will keep juggling Irani, Flintoff, Blackwell, Shah etc etc.
As for the bowling, I am not convinced Gough will still cause problems to batsmen at the international level. England are better off taking some chances with youngsters, risking a few more pastings, but eventually finding some good players.

Face it: SA would have celebrated if they were playing England instead of India. That's not to say that England are lousy. They are simply not a settled team now. Nor do they have a genuine matchwinner apart from Trescothick. Any team needs one of these two things to win a tournament.
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
The stats

BTW,
here are the results for the 11 matches mentioned earlier in this thread:

In India

19-01-2002 India beat England by 22 runs Calcutta

22-01-2002 England beat India by 16 runs Cuttack

25-01-2002 India beat England by 4 wickets Madras

28-01-2002 India beat England by 8 wickets Kanpur

31-01-2002 England beat India by 2 runs New Delhi

03-02-2002 England beat India by 5 runs Bombay (WS)

In England

29-06-2002 India beat England by 6 wickets Lord's

04-07-2002 England vs India No result Chester-le-Street

09-07-2002 England beat India by 64 runs The Oval (rain shortened match: 32 overs)

13-07-2002 India beat England by 2 wickets Lord's

In Sri Lanka

22-09-2002 India beat England by 8 wickets Colombo (RPS)

[Edited on 23/9/2002 by full_length]
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
And earlier

I was just checking the stats and found, not surprisingly, that the last time England had the better of India in a series/tournament was in '96 in England. After that series, England lost two matches to India in Sharjah winning one, and lost the WC encounter.
Before '96, we had a squared series in India in '93, which came after England beat India in a single match in Australia in '92.
All series prior to that ended in India winning or drawing, till you go all the way back to 1985.

All in all, here goes, the whole story:
Everything grouped with timeframes (meaning you will see single matches als, not only series/tournaments)

74-74: England beat India 3-0 in England

81-81: India beat England 2-1 in India
82-83: England beat India 2-1 in England
84-85: England beat India 4-1 in India

One off match in Sydney in 1985: India beat England

86: 1-1 in England
April 87: India beat England in one-off in Sharjah
Nov 87: England beat India in India
Oct 89: India beat England in India



1990: India beat England 2-0 in England
1992: England beat India 1-0 in one off match in Sydney
1993: Series squared 3-3 in India

1996: England beat India 2-0 in England
1997: India beat England 2-1 in Sharjah

1999: India beat England in one-off (World Cup)

2002:
Series squared in India 3-3
India won the Natwest, and on the way got a 2-1 record against England. The win from England came in a 32 over match.

India beat England in SriLanka.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Originally posted by BengalCat
The way India batted, India would even had chased a target of 325(like they did in Natwest Final).England were outplayed by a better team, if England can't defend totals like 325 or 270 then something is definately wrong with them.
An yet again I will say that to chase that India had to concede that many, which suggests they're bowling is also extremely poor.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Originally posted by full_length
BTW,
here are the results for the 11 matches mentioned earlier in this thread:

In India

19-01-2002 India beat England by 22 runs Calcutta

22-01-2002 England beat India by 16 runs Cuttack

25-01-2002 India beat England by 4 wickets Madras

28-01-2002 India beat England by 8 wickets Kanpur

31-01-2002 England beat India by 2 runs New Delhi

03-02-2002 England beat India by 5 runs Bombay (WS)

In England

29-06-2002 India beat England by 6 wickets Lord's

04-07-2002 England vs India No result Chester-le-Street

09-07-2002 England beat India by 64 runs The Oval (rain shortened match: 32 overs)

13-07-2002 India beat England by 2 wickets Lord's

In Sri Lanka

22-09-2002 India beat England by 8 wickets Colombo (RPS)

[Edited on 23/9/2002 by full_length]
Funny how you can go from basing the difference between 2 teams on 10 matches to 11 matches just because it suits your argument to do that.

THe 10 matches was started by someone trying to prove something which can't really be proved, so at least remain consistent in judging sides - on the last 10 it is still 5-4 with 1 rained off.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Originally posted by full_length
I was just checking the stats and found, not surprisingly, that the last time England had the better of India in a series/tournament was in '96 in England. After that series, England lost two matches to India in Sharjah winning one, and lost the WC encounter.
Before '96, we had a squared series in India in '93, which came after England beat India in a single match in Australia in '92.
All series prior to that ended in India winning or drawing, till you go all the way back to 1985.

All in all, here goes, the whole story:
Everything grouped with timeframes (meaning you will see single matches als, not only series/tournaments)

74-74: England beat India 3-0 in England

81-81: India beat England 2-1 in India
82-83: England beat India 2-1 in England
84-85: England beat India 4-1 in India

One off match in Sydney in 1985: India beat England

86: 1-1 in England
April 87: India beat England in one-off in Sharjah
Nov 87: England beat India in India
Oct 89: India beat England in India



1990: India beat England 2-0 in England
1992: England beat India 1-0 in one off match in Sydney
1993: Series squared 3-3 in India

1996: England beat India 2-0 in England
1997: India beat England 2-1 in Sharjah

1999: India beat England in one-off (World Cup)

2002:
Series squared in India 3-3
India won the Natwest, and on the way got a 2-1 record against England. The win from England came in a 32 over match.

India beat England in SriLanka.
The way ODI Cricket has evolved over recent years, you can't really read a lot into anything from the early 90's or earlier.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
As for England, they still don't know their team. At this rate they will keep juggling Irani, Flintoff, Blackwell, Shah etc etc.
There would be a settled team if they were all fit, but you do have to remember that there were these players missing, so it would be impossible to have a settled team at the moment!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
This English bowling attack based on experience & quality was better than India's with or without Gough and Flintoff.
Based on experience, there is no contest:

Caddick 40
Cork 32
Giles 22
Blackwell 2
Irani 19
Hoggard 18

A grand total of 133

Nehra 19
Khan 46
Harbajan 53
Kumble 231

Even without Kumble, the other 3 main Indian bowlers have played only 15 times less than England's 6 bowlers!

Now tell me which attack was more experienced?
 

Blewy

Cricketer Of The Year
Thats actually surprising but its not, if i had said without looking at the stats i would've went for England, but then looking closely i realised that India had a pretty good experienced attack..
 

aussie_beater

State Vice-Captain
Originally posted by marc71178 The way ODI Cricket has evolved over recent years, you can't really read a lot into anything from the early 90's or earlier.
Yes there's no point at looking that far back because the current sides performance cannot be gauged from what these teams did in the eighties.

In the past year India and England have played 11 matches with 10 producing results.The scoreline says it all .....6-4 in favour of India.
 

BengalCat

Cricket Spectator
Originally posted by marc71178
Originally posted by BengalCat
The way India batted, India would even had chased a target of 325(like they did in Natwest Final).England were outplayed by a better team, if England can't defend totals like 325 or 270 then something is definately wrong with them.
An yet again I will say that to chase that India had to concede that many, which suggests they're bowling is also extremely poor.

U can't justify England's bowlers pathetic display by saying that even Indian bowlers went for run.
I would like to point out some facts over here.First of all, Indian bowling attack is INEXPERIANCED, secondarily, they are going in the matches with just 4 bowlers, in contrast Eng go with 5 bowlers.
And finally, India plays without a specialists keeper, and their fielding aren't as good as the English ones.
 

warrioryohannan

U19 Cricketer
Few months back, Aus axed Lee from onedayer team coz he was proving to be to expensive.

England too should follow the example and throw out bowlers like Hoggard and Cork who are more of a burden on their team.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Originally posted by aussie_beater
Originally posted by marc71178 The way ODI Cricket has evolved over recent years, you can't really read a lot into anything from the early 90's or earlier.
Yes there's no point at looking that far back because the current sides performance cannot be gauged from what these teams did in the eighties.

In the past year India and England have played 11 matches with 10 producing results.The scoreline says it all .....6-4 in favour of India.
Which flatters England by suggesting they are close but then again none of those have had a first choice England team ;)
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Originally posted by BengalCatU can't justify England's bowlers pathetic display by saying that even Indian bowlers went for run.
Why not, suggests it's a good batting wicket.

I would like to point out some facts over here.First of all, Indian bowling attack is INEXPERIANCED, secondarily, they are going in the matches with just 4 bowlers, in contrast Eng go with 5 bowlers.
I've just proven that it's far more experienced than England. And going in with 4 bowlers is a big mistake when they face the big boys, if England can take 70 off the 5th bowler, what will Aus or SA do?

And finally, India plays without a specialists keeper
So what, that is their choice!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
England too should follow the example and throw out bowlers like Hoggard and Cork who are more of a burden on their team.
Cork is only playing because of injuries.

Hoggard concedes 4.91 per over, hardly the worst.
 

BengalCat

Cricket Spectator
Originally posted by marc71178
Why not, suggests it's a good batting wicket.

LOL, the fact that England bowled badly is still unacceptible for u.Man, the pitch was a batting one BUT the manner in which India chased 270 of less than 40 overs suggests that England bowlers were just gifting the runs!


I've just proven that it's far more experienced than England. And going in with 4 bowlers is a big mistake when they face the big boys, if England can take 70 off the 5th bowler, what will Aus or SA do?

Who said it wasn't a mistake? BUT please worry about ur own team coz English bowlers are the worst of the lot

And finally, India plays without a specialists keeper
So what, that is their choice!


Yes that is their choice, my point is that India have augmented its batting line up at the expense of bowler/wk therefore they often goes for runs HOWEVER England haven't applied such a policy YET their bowlers end up giving more runs than Indian bowlers

:D
 

warrioryohannan

U19 Cricketer
[quote
Which flatters England by suggesting they are close but then again none of those have had a first choice England team ;) [/quote]

What exactly is England's first choice 11?? We all know that England team is never free of injuries, 3-4 players are always down and out.Ur team get thrashed and the only way u can get satisfaction is by comming up with an excuse that Poms weren't playing there first choice 11.
 

Top