India is No.1 in World test cricket!

[Top_Cat]

No offence aussie, but you live in your own world. Nobody is getting carried away, but to say things aren't on the up for England given where we have come from is quite simply ridiculous. FACT!!!!

Completely AWTA.

 

[GIMH]

How where we on the way down after the 05 Ashes??. We had everything in place. Only thing that crippled us was the injuries to Jones, FLintoff & Vaughan, plus Trescothicks unfortuante mental woes.

The fact that it took us a year to win a series again? The fact that we lost two out of three Tests following the Ashes? That's on the way down if ever I saw it. Blame injuries if you want but that's not here or there.

If over the past 4 years we had all of them fit, ENG would have had FAR better results & the team today probably would have bee:

Trescothick
Strauss (c)
Trott
KP
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Jones
Anderson

Now that would be have been up with AUS/SA/IND for sure.

Only Problem then now would be that Collingwood in test you always feel he is one failure from getting drop if he comes up againts a quality pace attack. Thus Morgan would be the next bestman in line.

KP of course. But i can't see how you can have much confidence in Cook, he has the same technical flaws from since Ashes 06/07. He like Collingwood is just a series away from being dropped. If Trescothick didn't have his mental woes, Cook would have been dropepd a long time ago.

That side is hardly different to the one we can expect to be fielded in SA just lose Tresco, Flintoff & Jones. Cook has made changes to his technique but you choose to ignore these. And given that he was retained ahead of Strauss in 07-08, your statement is pure speculation.

- Anderson he is getting better all the time yes. Expect him to become the new Hoggard very soon. The defacto leader of the attack. But ATM Anderson a bit like the West Indies having Vanburn Holder leading the attack in the ealry 70s after Hall/Griffith left & before the 4-prong arrives. Thats the position ENG are in right now.

- Swann. Solid operator, he is better than what AUS have ATM. So thats good enough ha.

- Broad, improving. Long may it continue, by no means a world beater or anything

- The jury is still out on Onions. He would probably be good in English conditions not sure about his effect on flat decks.

- Sidebottom seems to be pass his peak. No sure how much longer he will last. But he should play in SA

Then we have as backup to them Bresnan, Plunkett, Harmo (maybe) & god forbin Davies. Thats not quality depth.

Overall none of the main group of fast bowlers can be considered WC, just that Anderson is solid operator & have a real determined spinner in Swann. Plus no good exciting young fast bowlers around. I dont see how this makes you confident from a year ago.

Again, Broad & Onions, we don't know how good they will be. Broad has shown a few times this year that he has real promise (more than Flintoff did at his age for sure) and Onions has looked pretty good at times. There's certainly enough there to be optimistic about. Sidebottom doesn't appear fit enough to carry a Test workload anymore, sadly.

As for your 'god forbin [sic]' to Davies, not going there again.

The improvement in Broad, the emergence of Onions and Anderson's ongoing progression are obvious signs of improvement from twelve months ago, but hey ho, ignore this, that's cool.

he only thing new & exciting from one year ago is the emergence of Morgan.

Thought we were talking Tests? And, erm, Trott???

So if ENG lose in SA now (which is very likely to happen regardless of the Ashes win & SA bowling attack lacking a bit of sting). What are you going to say then?

We're playing away to arguably the best side in the world, but certainly one of the top two. If we lose it is still possible for signs of progress to be shown. So I'll wait and see what happens before I decide what I'm going to say.

As i showed above, compared to situation the teamw as post 2005 Ashes, we clearly are not on the way up with so much question marks over many players & a bowling attack just losing out only WC bowler.

ENG are in a delicate balance ATM, drawing or winning in SA with some of the bowlers stepping up would signal something very good after winning the Ashes. But losing in SA & its back to square one (PAK 2005 to WI 2009) & it would pretty much prove winning the Ashes was a fluke.

While AUS definately have a team that they are building on despite the Ashes. Quality depth in all area's (except spin of course).

You never showed anything above. Give me this side over the shambles of November 05 onwards.

And what happens in SA can neither prove nor disprove whether the Ashes win was a fluke, absolute nonsense.

Doesn't happen often but they have been a few series in cricket history, where the inferior team over a 5 test (or 4 test which is long enough as well) have come out top due to lucky circumstance. But beating the superior team like what ENG did in the Ashes, didn't signal the beginning of any revival.

- See Ind vs WI 2002 (in West Indies)

- SA vs AUS 52/53 (in AUS)

- NZ vs SA 61/62

- IND vs AUS 03/04 (fluke in the sense that they where lucky McGrath/Warne didn't play & Dizzy was playing injured, thus the strong IND batting took advantage of weakened AUS attack & the series was closer than it should have been)

- WI vs AUS 99 (WI as team didn't play great cricket, it was Lara vs AUS. Aus where clearly the superior team). WI still remained crapped.

- ENG vs SA 98 (Eng dont know how they what the series, SA where clearly the superior team & made a few mistakes a crucial points like AUS did in this years Ashes). Eng still remained crap.

The best teams don't make mistakes, winning teams win the key points, this seems to be lost on you. Cricket isn't played on paper.

Apologies everyone for going against everything I stand for with this quote by quote dissection. Won't happen again.

 

[aussie]

The fact that it took us a year to win a series again? The fact that we lost two out of three Tests following the Ashes? That's on the way down if ever I saw it. Blame injuries if you want but that's not here or there.

It was definately injuries.

- Trescothick was getting better (as he has shown by his plundering of attacks for Somerset all the time these days).

- Jones could/should have become one of the best bowlers in the world.

- We clearly missed Vaughan's leadership was between 2006-2007, plus his knee injury woes to a level affected his batting when he came back.

- Flintoff never got to becoem to complete all-rounder he should have been. Eveytime his came back his batting struggled to click, although is bowling always was on point.

Off all the series between PAK 05 to WI 09, the only series i think we may have still lost even with a full strenght was in PAK 05. Since Akhtat was magnificent. In all most every series we have injury woes (most notably when IND won 1-0 in 07, our entire first choice attack was missing). We definately would NOT have lost 5-0 in the Ashes with that full-strenght team.

ENG definately had a team if all had stayed fit after the 05 Ashes, that could have been on of the best in the world. The same unfortuantely CANNOT be said about the team post win the 09 Ashes.

That side is hardly different to the one we can expect to be fielded in SA just lose Tresco, Flintoff & Jones. Cook has made changes to his technique but you choose to ignore these.

No he hasn't Cook's technical flaws are:

- he gets himself trapped on crease, thus is huge LBW candidate for right hard inswing bowlers especially.

- he doesn't know where his off-stump is when facing. Plays at alot of deliveries he shouldn't.

That was well exposed in 06/07. Since then the two series he has come up againts quality pace attacks IND 07 (not quality pace attack per seh, but as you should remember Khan & co swung the ball alot) SA 08 & Ashes 09, he has been well exposed.

You could probably argue that if Trescothick was still around, maybe Cook may have been batting @ 3 for an extended period (since Bell may have been axed first). But with Trott coming in the team now, he defiantely would not have been in the team in this hypotetical situation.

And given that he was retained ahead of Strauss in 07-08, your statement is pure speculation.

Because Strauss had lost form after his shocking 06/07 Ashes performance. Nothing to do with Cook's excellence.

Again, Broad & Onions, we don't know how good they will be. Broad has shown a few times this year that he has real promise (more than Flintoff did at his age for sure) and Onions has looked pretty good at times. There's certainly enough there to be optimistic about. Sidebottom doesn't appear fit enough to carry a Test workload anymore, sadly.

As for your 'god forbin [sic]' to Davies, not going there again.

The improvement in Broad, the emergence of Onions and Anderson's ongoing progression are obvious signs of improvement from twelve months ago, but hey ho, ignore this, that's cool.

Anderson alone has progressed i agree. Broad & Onions are very much up in the air. I have far more faith in the West Indies pace trio of Taylor/Roach/Edwards going forward than what we have.

Thought we were talking Tests? And, erm, Trott???

Morgan too. He should be playing in first test AFAIC & should be ahead of Bell.

And what happens in SA can neither prove nor disprove whether the Ashes win was a fluke, absolute nonsense.

The best teams don't make mistakes, winning teams win the key points, this seems to be lost on you. Cricket isn't played on paper.

Yes if he we lose in SA will prve that the Ashes was fluke & yes the best teams do & have made msitakes.

If you beat a superior team it should be a sign of definite improvement or a turnaround in fortunes. Look at the example i gave with England beating South Africa in 98, when then lost to SRI the NEXT series & a year later when NZ toured we lost & were herald the worst team in world. So quite clearly that win vs a fair superior SA team was a fluke, since that series didn't signal any revival during the dark 90s.


Same thing with WI drawin 2-2 with AUS in 99. Lost to NZ next series & they still remainded crap for the next decade.

 

[Sanz]

Oh No.!!!

 

[GIMH]

It was definately injuries.

- Trescothick was getting better (as he has shown by his plundering of attacks for Somerset all the time these days).

- Jones could/should have become one of the best bowlers in the world.

- We clearly missed Vaughan's leadership was between 2006-2007, plus his knee injury woes to a level affected his batting when he came back.

- Flintoff never got to becoem to complete all-rounder he should have been. Eveytime his came back his batting struggled to click, although is bowling always was on point.

Off all the series between PAK 05 to WI 09, the only series i think we may have still lost even with a full strenght was in PAK 05. Since Akhtat was magnificent. In all most every series we have injury woes (most notably when IND won 1-0 in 07, our entire first choice attack was missing). We definately would NOT have lost 5-0 in the Ashes with that full-strenght team.

ENG definately had a team if all had stayed fit after the 05 Ashes, that could have been on of the best in the world. The same unfortuantely CANNOT be said about the team post win the 09 Ashes.




No he hasn't Cook's technical flaws are:

- he gets himself trapped on crease, thus is huge LBW candidate for right hard inswing bowlers especially.

- he doesn't know where his off-stump is when facing. Plays at alot of deliveries he shouldn't.

That was well exposed in 06/07. Since then the two series he has come up againts quality pace attacks IND 07 (not quality pace attack per seh, but as you should remember Khan & co swung the ball alot) SA 08 & Ashes 09, he has been well exposed.

You could probably argue that if Trescothick was still around, maybe Cook may have been batting @ 3 for an extended period (since Bell may have been axed first). But with Trott coming in the team now, he defiantely would not have been in the team in this hypotetical situation.




Because Strauss had lost form after his shocking 06/07 Ashes performance. Nothing to do with Cook's excellence.





Anderson alone has progressed i agree. Broad & Onions are very much up in the air. I have far more faith in the West Indies pace trio of Taylor/Roach/Edwards going forward than what we have.





Morgan too. He should be playing in first test AFAIC & should be ahead of Bell.











Yes if he we lose in SA will prve that the Ashes was fluke & yes the best teams do & have made msitakes.

If you beat a superior team it should be a sign of definite improvement or a turnaround in fortunes. Look at the example i gave with England beating South Africa in 98, when then lost to SRI the NEXT series & a year later when NZ toured we lost & were herald the worst team in world. So quite clearly that win vs a fair superior SA team was a fluke, since that series didn't signal any revival during the dark 90s.


Same thing with WI drawin 2-2 with AUS in 99. Lost to NZ next series & they still remainded crap for the next decade.

You must be the only person who puts our post-05 decline purely down to injuries. Yes, of course injuries meant that that XI, the best England team I have ever seen (IMO, many will disagree) would never play together again. But if you think the post-Ashes euphoria didn't contribute to the decline, you're seriously deluded; pretty much everybody involved in the England setup has acknowledged that this set us back a couple of years.

I'd also disagree with the notion that Flintoff never became the complete all-rounder he could have been, this is exactly what he was between 2003 up to the India tour in 2006. Look up the figures if you are that way inclined.

How can you say Broad hasn't progressed? DId you watch the series against NZ/SA in 08? The the series against the West Indies? And the latter half of the Ashes? No, clearly no progression. Didn't say he was complete, just that he'd progressed.

And aussie, you're being far too conclusive with your language as usual. Defeat to South Africa will PROVE nothing about why the Ashes were won, nothing ever will. It can't be proven because it is a completely subjective opinion. Get that into your head as it is beyond a joke now, the way you try and be so authorative. Your opinion is just that and I for one am sick and tired of you trying to pass it off as conclusive fact.

As I said, SA are a better team than Australia. So it's perfectly reasonable to lose away to SA. But I hope we won't. But mainly, I want to see compete and continue to show the progress we've shown since the horrors of the Caribbean.

 

[Prince EWS]

Losing to the number two Test team on their own dunghill proves that beating the number three Test team at home over five Tests was a fluke. It's a fact.

 

[aussie]

You must be the only person who puts our post-05 decline purely down to injuries. Yes, of course injuries meant that that XI, the best England team I have ever seen (IMO, many will disagree) would never play together again. But if you think the post-Ashes euphoria didn't contribute to the decline, you're seriously deluded; pretty much everybody involved in the England setup has acknowledged that this set us back a couple of years.

Ha no way. The Ashes series euphoria was 100% justified it was the culmunation of the work started by Hussain & Fletcher after we where embarassingly ranekd the worst team in the world after NZ beat us here in 99.

Vaughan built on that during our excellent 2004 & after the Ashes we had nothing but going forward. What set us back was clearly the injuries to those key players. As i said the only series between PAK 2005 to WI 09 (in WI) that we may have still lost even with a full strenght was in PAK 2005. Since Akhtar's spells would have beaten us regardless.

The Ashes 06/07 would have clearly been closer as well.

I'd also disagree with the notion that Flintoff never became the complete all-rounder he could have been, this is exactly what he was between 2003 up to the India tour in 2006. Look up the figures if you are that way inclined.

I'd more say 2004 (Bridgetown test to be exact) to IND 2006 was his all-round peak.

But Flintoff clearly also could have kept improving especially in his batting. In the IND 06 series especially his batting againts spin he clearly showed vast improvements. His injuries for the next 3 years caused his batting progress to regress, since Flintoff odly his bowling was always able to be on mark from ball regardless of how long he was out injured for.

How can you say Broad hasn't progressed? DId you watch the series against NZ/SA in 08? The the series against the West Indies? And the latter half of the Ashes? No, clearly no progression. Didn't say he was complete, just that he'd progressed.

Ha Where have i debated this??

Broad, improving. Long may it continue, by no means a world beater or anything

All i said is that i have more faith in the WI pace trio of Taylor/Roach/Edwards going forward than what we have ATM.

And aussie, you're being far too conclusive with your language as usual. Defeat to South Africa will PROVE nothing about why the Ashes were won, nothing ever will.

So using history as guide. What was ENG beating the very strong SA team in 98 then losing the NZ the next year did. Did that prove anything about whether ENG where progressing or anything??

It can't be proven because it is a completely subjective opinion. Get that into your head as it is beyond a joke now, the way you try and be so authorative. Your opinion is just that and I for one am sick and tired of you trying to pass it off as conclusive fact.

Ha i have never tried to be authorative or whatever when i post. Thats just you CWers in recent times trying to sterotype my post. My opinion is as good as your and anyone else here.

If i say McGrath is the most successful paceman of all time thats a fact. If i say Sid Barnes is the greatest bowler of all-time thats a personal/subjective opinion.

I distinguish between the two all the time, some of you though probably in some debates dont wish to accept some hardcore cricket facts (maybe because of ideological premises), which i cant do nothing about...

As I said, SA are a better team than Australia. So it's perfectly reasonable to lose away to SA.

No they are even ATM, given that AUS won the return series in SA in march.

But I hope we won't. But mainly, I want to see compete and continue to show the progress we've shown since the horrors of the Caribbean.

I expect improvements individually as well. But not a series victory, but given the SA bowling attack is a bit weak ATM, we could run them close if the likes of Parnell etc dont step up & Steyn has to carry the attack.

Losing to the number two Test team on their own dunghill proves that beating the number three Test team at home over five Tests was a fluke. It's a fact.

IND beat AUS in 2001 (the number 1 team, although AUS where clearly exposed to quality spin) & managed to lose to a FAR West Indies team the next year.

ENG beat SA 98 (the # 2 team to AUS then) & ENG lost to a weaker (but still very strong)NZ the next year at home.

These things clearly do happen in cricket...

 

[GIMH]

Look, we're going round in circles so I'm just going to make two points.

Firstly, yes, euphoria after the 05 victory was in many ways deserved, it was a brilliant victory. However, it was treated as the culmination of everything where actually it should have been the start of better things. We were still ranked second in the world and should have strived to become the best. Instead the players felt it was job done. Open bus, MBEs. They rested on their laurels and the result was a decline that lasted for a few years, a decline we seem to be potentially finally rectifying. You can talk ifs and buts until the cows come home. Yes we might have done better without injuries. But injuries happened and we still should have done better. Complacency was massive in a squad that felt they had achieved everything and hadn't.

Secondly, when you say things like "if we lose to SA it proves the Ashes win was a fluke" then yes, you are speaking authoratively. It might prove it in your opinion but it doesn't prove it as a fact, which you claim it will. This isn't me and the others stereotyping you, it's simply a case of you claiming that things are facts when actually they are opinions.