England vs India

[warrioryohannan]

[

Cork is only playing because of injuries.

Hoggard concedes 4.91 per over, hardly the worst.

Well 1/3rd of the English team are playing coz someone is injured, the reserves are just as good as the Bangladesh first choice pacers

As for Hoggard, he has improved his economy rate by playing match against Zimb, before that his ER was 5.1.

Believe me, when Hoggard will face SA or Aus, they will murder him, the guy is in the onedayer team just to ensure an early ticket home to england, but then same can be said about the other english bowlers!

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by marc71178
Which flatters England by suggesting they are close but then again none of those have had a first choice England team

And they will never have one....and keep getting thrashed.If that's the consolation of English fans, no one really cares....all we care about is how good a beating we can hand out

[Edited on 24/9/2002 by aussie_beater]

 

[WeptWindies]

LOL!!

Cricket is Injurious to English players health, so better keep out of it!

:O:O

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by warrioryohannan
[quote
Which flatters England by suggesting they are close but then again none of those have had a first choice England team

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.
[/quote]

IMO Tests:

Trescothick
Vaughan
Butcher
Hussain
Thorpe
Stewart
Flintoff
White
Giles
Gough
Hoggard

ODI's

Trescothick
Knight/Vaughan
Flintoff
Vaughan(if not opening)/Thorpe
Hussain
Irani
Blackwell
Stewart
Snape
Gough
Hoggard

They would be about as good a side as we could muster at the moment.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by BengalCat

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

There's a reason for that:

England are bowling to the best batting side in the world currently.

I still feel they should look to playing an extra bowling option. On another forum suggested Agarkar going in at 3 in place of Laxman - anyone have an opinon on that?

 

[BengalCat]

[/quote]

There's a reason for that:

England are bowling to the best batting side in the world currently.

I still feel they should look to playing an extra bowling option. On another forum suggested Agarkar going in at 3 in place of Laxman - anyone have an opinon on that? [/quote]


Aus are the one that have the best batting side, BUT that is beside the point.The fact is that even with 5 bowlers Eng are being hammered, U will see that Aus and SA team won't allow Indian batters to score that freely.It clearly shows that Eng attack is pathetic.
Ofcourse, like u have been saying all along that even Indian bowlers went for runs BUT keep in mind that India is basically a batting side, so much so that they play without a specialists keeper, and without a 5th specialist bowler.Whether this approach will work or not remains to be seen, so far so good, but i think in the WC they will have to go in with 5 bowlers!

 

[Sulphate]

Originally posted by BengalCat

There's a reason for that:

England are bowling to the best batting side in the world currently.

I still feel they should look to playing an extra bowling option. On another forum suggested Agarkar going in at 3 in place of Laxman - anyone have an opinon on that? [/quote]


Aus are the one that have the best batting side, BUT that is beside the point.The fact is that even with 5 bowlers Eng are being hammered, U will see that Aus and SA team won't allow Indian batters to score that freely.It clearly shows that Eng attack is pathetic.
Ofcourse, like u have been saying all along that even Indian bowlers went for runs BUT keep in mind that India is basically a batting side, so much so that they play without a specialists keeper, and without a 5th specialist bowler.Whether this approach will work or not remains to be seen, so far so good, but i think in the WC they will have to go in with 5 bowlers! [/quote]

to say that englands bowling attack is 'pathetic' because of two poor bowling displays in their last two one dayers is pretty ignorant. their bowling attack has had some quite good performances in one dayers in the past year, and to call it pathetic is quite frankly just pathetic. !

im not saying their attack is anything special or anything and they are cleary off form and under par at the moment, but u could be a bit more constructive in your comments and give such a sweeping generalisation on the back of two performances.

[Edited on 09/01/87 by Sulphate]

 

[BengalCat]

[quote
to say that englands bowling attack is 'pathetic' because of two poor bowling displays in their last two one dayers is pretty ignorant. their bowling attack has had some quite good performances in one dayers in the past year, and to call it pathetic is quite frankly just pathetic. !

Yeah they had SOME GOOD PERFORMANCE.
But usually they fare poorly, have a look at their amazing record against Aus and Pak at their own soil, that bowlers wen't for sixes, that's a different thing that the same bowler fared well againt minor zimb

 

[Sulphate]

Originally posted by BengalCat
[quote
to say that englands bowling attack is 'pathetic' because of two poor bowling displays in their last two one dayers is pretty ignorant. their bowling attack has had some quite good performances in one dayers in the past year, and to call it pathetic is quite frankly just pathetic. !

Yeah they had SOME GOOD PERFORMANCE.
But usually they fare poorly, have a look at their amazing record against Aus and Pak at their own soil, that bowlers wen't for sixes, that's a different thing that the same bowler fared well againt minor zimb

but does that therefore make their bowling attack 'pathetic' as u claim them to be. ?

 

[marc71178]

Yeah they had SOME GOOD PERFORMANCE.
But usually they fare poorly, have a look at their amazing record against Aus and Pak at their own soil, that bowlers wen't for sixes, that's a different thing that the same bowler fared well againt minor zimb

You are still overlooking the fact that the recent matches have seen England without Gough and Flintoff - 2 of their key bowlers in recent times, probably as important to England as McGrath and Gillespie are to Aus.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And those eleven games show that:

On balance, India is probably the better side
but
England are capable of beating them

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
And those eleven games show that:

On balance, India is probably the better side
but
England are capable of beating them

Yes every team is capable of beating another, once in a while...but what matters is who can call the shots more consistently.

 

[full_length]

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]

I posted this earlier.

Yes, England are capable of beating India now and then.

The 32 over match is pretty much irrelevant IMO.
Somehow there are a few thumping wins there from India and none of those matches really show England dominating India.

One tends to think that it's not even 40-60 for England vs. India. The times when India has come back to win matches in recent past mean that those close matches will tend to go India's way more often than before.. There once was a time when the close ones would inevitably end with a loss for us.

You'd be right if you said this is mostly perception as like you point out, the score line is really 4-6, with that 32 over match counted. But it's not exactly 'fond hopes'. Performances in recent times do support this perception.

 

[marc71178]

Why do you just say we can discount the 32 over game - it was a One Day International as much the same as all the 50 over ones - both teams knew how long their innings would be before the game started, so there can no complaints there.

 

[Anil]

Why do you just say we can discount the 32 over game - it was a One Day International as much the same as all the 50 over ones - both teams knew how long their innings would be before the game started, so there can no complaints there.

Great. Don't discount it. It still shows that India has been superior to England in one dayers in the recent past.

 

[luckyeddie]

As an Englishman, I wholeheartedly agree.

This Indian side have a lot more bottle than in the past.

I just wish that they would play 5 bowlers in ODI's. Otherwise, sooner or later, they will come unstuck big-time.

 

[marc71178]

The 6-4 score doesn't actually show anything.

If you consider India have dominated 2 and England 1, the others have all been close finishes.

 

[full_length]

Yeah Marc, I agree with you on the fact that they knew the no. of overs before the match.

Think about this: I would back Pakistan to win any worldcup played for 30 overs, much ahead of Australia or any other team. The teams that you are used to seeing perform in 50 over games wont do as well in shorter games, and viceversa. If, on the other hand, people are used to playing the game for 30 overs, the match will be a good indicator because they will know what to do, when to accelerate; they'll get the appropriate lineup, and order etc. That's why it is very irrelevant. If both teams play such shortened games many times, then a match between them will be reflective of their respective capabilities- in that format. I am NOT disputing the validity of the match.

BTW, India's long batting lineup of players capable of hitting centuries (as opposed to SA's longer 30s and 40s lineup) will be less valuable than the Iranis, and Flintoffs who incidentally can do a lot just playing their natural game. On the other hand, if the Iranis and Flintoffs did the same thing in the 50 overs game, England wouldnt bat out 40 of them.

A good 30 over game lineup for India: Ganguly, Sehwag, Sachin, Yuvaraj, Khurasia (or someone like him), Sodhi, Reuban Paul (wk; or someone like him), some bowlers who can use the long handle- like Agarkar and Zaheer would be two of them.

[Edited on 25/9/2002 by full_length]

[Edited on 25/9/2002 by full_length]

 

[full_length]

I just wish that they would play 5 bowlers in ODI's. Otherwise, sooner or later, they will come unstuck big-time.

I think they should stick to the current format. But they should find four good seamers, three of them playing each match, who are disciplined, and able to atleast dominate the lesser batsmen, the bad starters, and the ones out of form easily.
Each team has it's strengths. This team's strength is in that seven batsmen can score centuries. Now, if even four of them screw up with 50 or 75 between them, they will back themselves to reach a big target or set a good one. So to play with one less batsman when the fifth bowler is not in the class that Pakistan and SA keep producing would be counterproductive.

 

[marc71178]

Interesting point, but man-for-man in a shortened game, I'd still say India should be more suited - they have Ganguly, Terndulkar and Shewag whereas we have Trescothick and Flintoff.

Incidentally, there was another 32 over game in the series (strange how we had 2 of that same length) but it was rained off. That had without a doubt the best spell of bowling in the entire series in it - Flintoff's 2-18 off 7 Overs whilst Jayasuriya was smashing 112 off 87 balls!