England vs India

[Anil]

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.

India has won 2 matches by 8 wickets, 1 by 6 wickets, 1 by 4 wickets, another by 22 runs and lastly by 2 wickets. That is 4 matches with plenty to spare, one fairly close and one very close. In contrast, England has won one match by 64 runs(the truncated 32 over match), and the other three by 16, 2 and 5 runs which makes them very close. So, you were right that England has dominated only one(that they won), but India has dominated as much as 4 matches(that they won) in this list. So much for your argument.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by 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.

The 5th Bowler IMO does concede too many runs - rarely less than 70 - today was a case in point 13.3 overs for 89 runs - and only Shewag pulls that down because SA got desparate when he was called upon.

 

[luckyeddie]

Regarding a 5th bowler for India, they probably found one today, namely Virender Sehwag.

He was superbly controlled and in the end was a more than adequate fill-in for Nehra.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by anilramavarma

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.

India has won 2 matches by 8 wickets, 1 by 6 wickets, 1 by 4 wickets, another by 22 runs and lastly by 2 wickets. That is 4 matches with plenty to spare, one fairly close and one very close. In contrast, England has won one match by 64 runs(the truncated 32 over match), and the other three by 16, 2 and 5 runs which makes them very close. So, you were right that England has dominated only one(that they won), but India has dominated as much as 4 matches(that they won) in this list. So much for your argument.

I personally don't think you can call a win by 6 wickets in the 49th over a domination, especially from 141-4, and certainly not a 4 wicket win in any circumstances.

Incidentally the biggest Indian win by a margin of runs was a game where England (in all honesty) didn't necessarily dominate, but were certainly well in control until Trescothick's untimely LBW to a ball pitching 6 inches outside leg stump decision. At that point 60 needed in 13 overs when they going at over run a ball shouldn't have been a problem.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by luckyeddie
Regarding a 5th bowler for India, they probably found one today, namely Virender Sehwag.

He was superbly controlled and in the end was a more than adequate fill-in for Nehra.

Personally I don't think you can trust him to do it on every game, and that is what you need from the 5th man, a bit of reliability.

 

[full_length]

aah.. the Trescothick dismissal. How can we ever forget that in our lifetime. Somehow I wish people had said stuff like this when Harper and co got Sachin four times in six in Australia.. including a new one- shoulder before wicket. The Indian captain, and team didnt choose to whinge like Hussain, and the English media.. a lesson to be learned. I wont even start about the other bad calls in that tournament that didnt favour India. The most important point you miss is that England lost some six or so wickets for fifty odd runs after that dismissal. Are you telling me they were so shell shocked on seeing a bad decision for the first time in their lives that they forgot how to bat? It was a one man effort from Tres. And when he's going, he can do as much as any batsman in the world to win a match for England. Team England lost fair and square.

Anyhow, EVEN if Tres had stayed the match would have gone to the wire anyway. Or maybe he would have got out the next ball. But anyway, they still MAY have won a close match. That doesnt change the arguement made so far.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by marc71178
The 6-4 score doesn't actually show anything.

Did you see an opthalmologist yet ???

 

[wahindiawah]

Originally posted by aussie_beater

Originally posted by marc71178
The 6-4 score doesn't actually show anything.

Did you see an opthalmologist yet ???

A more clearer vision would only amplify the pain of the Englishmen, better watch their team getting kicked with poor eyesight:duh:

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by full_length
aah.. the Trescothick dismissal. How can we ever forget that in our lifetime. Somehow I wish people had said stuff like this when Harper and co got Sachin four times in six in Australia.. including a new one- shoulder before wicket.

Actually, if it hits the shoulder in front of the stumps, it is out LBW.
Very unlikely to happen, and I haven't seen it, but the laws do state it is out.

Similarly you could duck into a full toss, have it hit your head, and if it were going onto the stumps it's cheerio (unless the ball is adjudged a beamer, in which case it's a no ball.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by aussie_beater

Originally posted by marc71178
The 6-4 score doesn't actually show anything.

Did you see an opthalmologist yet ???

By that I meant it doesn't give an indication of the margins of victory. Sorry for confusing you.

 

[full_length]

Actually, if it hits the shoulder in front of the stumps, it is out LBW.
Very unlikely to happen, and I haven't seen it, but the laws do state it is out.

Similarly you could duck into a full toss, have it hit your head, and if it were going onto the stumps it's cheerio (unless the ball is adjudged a beamer, in which case it's a no ball.

Thanks for educating me on the rules of the game..

However, since you haven't seen the dismissal and seem oblivious to the fact that people haven't ever managed to pin that down as a correct decision either, I'll leave it at that.

Sachin was blatantly done in, on that occasion and three others (only one of which had a question mark). That series was the pits that I've seen Australian umpiring drop to. There were wrong results favouring the home team when the Aussies were batting too (two of Langer's come to mind), but what made it worse was the campaign against one player. BTW, Sachin was selected man of the series for the test series despite better performances in the winning team, from Langer for one.

As for the shoulder before wicket, I used that term deliberately not because he managed to get his shoulder in line with the stumps and the ball, but because he didn't. Further, he was out of the crease, and the ball was rising (though McGrath claimed it was going to level right then). You figure out the rest.

[Edited on 26/9/2002 by full_length]

 

[Anil]

I personally don't think you can call a win by 6 wickets in the 49th over a domination, especially from 141-4, and certainly not a 4 wicket win in any circumstances.

You wouldn't, considering that you lost both matches, would you?

Incidentally the biggest Indian win by a margin of runs was a game where England (in all honesty) didn't necessarily dominate, but were certainly well in control until Trescothick's untimely LBW to a ball pitching 6 inches outside leg stump decision. At that point 60 needed in 13 overs when they going at over run a ball shouldn't have been a problem.

Let's not harp on poor umpiring decisions too much. Every country has their share of incompetent umpires as f_l pointed out with another very relevant example as well as good umpires who have bad days.
I never mentioned that the match was dominated by India, I said it was fairly close.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by anilramavarma

You wouldn't, considering that you lost both matches, would you?

LOL, I just have a different view of domination to you I guess.

 

[marc71178]

Thanks for educating me on the rules of the game..

Sorry, I didn't know what level of Law knowledge you had, and having not seen the dismissal, I took the umpires side as I tend to do given my background.

 

[Anil]

LOL, I just have a different view of domination to you I guess.

Exactly what is your view? A side winning with 6 wickets or 4 wickets to spare is winning with plenty to spare whether it is the last over or not and is definitely the better side on the day. If they have a couple of overs to spare, it becomes even more comprehensive, that's all.

 

[marc71178]

4 wickets is definitely not a domination IMO as I think of a domination as being where there was no chance for the other team.

In the particular 6 wicket game, India had a big 5th wicket stand, so when the 4th wicket fell they were on the back foot - again not a domination IMO.

The 64 run game is only a domination because it was a 32 over game - had it been 40 or more I would have called it more a comfortable result.

The 2 8 wicket wins were just horrible!

 

[Neil Pickup]

A side winning with 6 wickets or 4 wickets to spare is winning with plenty to spare whether it is the last over or not and is definitely the better side on the day

Not in a one-day game where bowling is about restriction and not wicket taking it's not.

 

[Anil]

Not in a one-day game where bowling is about restriction and not wicket taking it's not.

Really! So, if a side wins a match by 1 wicket with 4-5 overs to spare, would you say that side dominated the match?

I agree that bowling a tight line and length to restrict the flow of runs is important in one day cricket, but taking wickets at regular intervals is still the best form of restriction.

 

[luckyeddie]

Under many circumstances, the final result doesn't tell the whole story. How many times have we seen sides recover from 44-5 to make 220 or so?

Similarly, you can be cruising and yet lose a fair few wickets at the death but still be relatively comfortable.

 

[Anil]

I totally agree with you, but Marc was saying that a victory by 6 wickets because it was won in the last over will not count as a comprehensive one. It tells me that the English bowlers in that match were at best restrictive and not penetrative and that's why India won the match. If you take a dominating match as one where one team scores 300 and dismisses the other for 150, then not too many matches will come into that category. I say we can point to one team as dominant if they prove to be the better team on the day and that is what a 6 wicket victory score line shows.

Neil further said that taking wickets does not count in one dayers as much as bowling a restrictive line and length. Case in point is the recent India-SA match. After Gibbs retired, if India had just tried to bowl a restrictive line and length and failed to take a wicket, Kallis and his partner would have seen SA home comfortably. The three wickets that fell for around 19 runs after Gibbs left is what started the alarm bells ringing in the SA camp and slowed them down. My point was that taking wickets is the best restriction of all.