The Battle for Number 2 (no pun intended)

[FaaipDeOiad]

And England can never be number two for untill they manage to win a series in Subcontinent!

How's that? The fact is, few teams tour the subcontinent successfully... it's very difficult, for a number of reasons. If England consistently beat all comers outside of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, including those three countries away from home, they'll be the second best team in the world. They'd stake a stronger claim if they were at least competitive in the subcontinent, which they largely have been in both the recent tours despite injuries and so on. They may have lost 3 out of 5 tests, but they haven't been thrashed by any means.

If India can't win outside of the subcontinent, and don't even dominate the series there (losing to Pakistan etc), they're simply not winning very much. India or Pakistan would have to go to England and at least be competitive to indicate their superiority as a side. Right now I can't really see that happening.

 

[IndianByHeart]

You could pretty well say the same thing about India and Pakistan - the only time they ever seem to win is in the subcontinent.

I said that in response to a statement similar to yours, so there is no need to repeat that further!

 

[Francis]

There's no doubt England were the clear number 2 after the Ashes, and before it as well.

It's one of the things that made the series interesting. It was a clear 1 vs. 2. England, coming off their success in SA were clear number two. After the Ashes? They lost to Pakistan and will probably lose to India. They're not clear number 2 now. Pakistan, however, were a horridly green team two years ago who nearly lost a test to Bangladesh. Since they lost in Australia they've done nothing wrong. They keep going up and up. India have had their problems and I'd have them below Pakistan right now.

For me, it's either England or Pakistan in second place. I wont know for certain until they play each other this summer. If Pakistan can draw the series, they're number two for me.

Australia need to be beaten at home for me to start thinking about them not being number one.

 

[IndianByHeart]

They'd stake a stronger claim if they were at least competitive in the subcontinent, which they largely have been in both the recent tours despite injuries and so on. They may have lost 3 out of 5 tests, but they haven't been thrashed by any means.

.

Thats where you are wrong, England haven't been competitive atall. Their performance in Pakistan wasn't impressive, losing two test matches and even losing a side game, and so far in India they have been unimpressive as well.
If England manage to win the last test match then i would agree with you that they were competitive but if they lose the second test match too then its clear that have have fared poorly in both the subcontinental tours. Injuries are part and parcel of the game, you need to have a good backup.

And i think last time the Indians toured England they managed a 1-1 draw, lets see if England can draw the current series too.

 

[marc71178]

Thats where you are wrong, England haven't been competitive atall.

Oh really?

1st Test in Pakistan - well on top until last day
2nd Test - Drawn, but still in with a chance of a win on the 5th morning
3rd Test - took it to the 5th afternoon.
1st Test in India - Always well on top of the game
2nd Test - On level terms till at least the 4th afternoon.

So how is that "not being competitive at all"?

 

[age_master]

i rate England better than India or Pakistan

 

[IndianByHeart]

i rate England better than India or Pakistan

If they lose the second test to India too, then i seriously doubt that they are even at par with India, considering they only drew with India on their home turf .

 

[Ming]

Disgrace. New Zealand are #2.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Disgrace. New Zealand are #2.

Some sense at last.

 

[alternative]

I can't see England being Number 2 if they don't win series away from home.. after ashes they are not the same.. it will be a tough battle for them..
Right now i see India and Pakistan joint at number two.. but the away series for both teams will determine their positions..

 

[GIMH]

As Marc stated, we HAVE been competitive, and this even though we haven't been able to field our first XI since Trent Bridge, I reckon our first Xi can easily sit pretty at #2, but we do lack strength in depth in parts, or at least lack the ideas of the best way to replace injured players.

 

[IndianByHeart]

As Marc stated, we HAVE been competitive, and this even though we haven't been able to field our first XI since Trent Bridge, I reckon our first Xi can easily sit pretty at #2, but we do lack strength in depth in parts, or at least lack the ideas of the best way to replace injured players.

If you keep losing 2-0, then you can leave all the talk about being competitive.As for not fielding your first 11, thats your headace, if you don't have proper backup, thats ur problem.I don't think even if the missing players had been playing in the present series, the result would have been much different.

 

[GIMH]

Well, I did say we lacked strength in depth as a criticism, my point was merely that if our First XI was always available then we'd always be a lot harder to beat - and have a much stronger claim for #2 and beyond - with a spate of injuries we look like falling back into the pack.

You may think our missing players wouldn't have made a difference, and for the first test, that is very possibly true, but we dominated the match on days 2, 3 and 4, so you could hardly dismiss our competitiveness

If you think though, that had Simon Jones been bowling instead of Liam Plunkett being a passenger, in the 2nd test, that you would have still beaten us by 9 wickets, well i think you're a little bit silly, you may still have won, who knows, but our full strength pace attack is the best in the world, and Jones is on a mission to become world #1, I think he can do it if he stays fit, anyhow, there is no way of knowing what would have happened, the fact is, we have hardly rolled over for you with half a team, so you can't dismiss our competitiveness.

I know this sounds like I am making excuses for injuries, but I am not : my basic point is, if each team had all their players available, I think England would rank second. That's my opinion.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Well you have to live with that.England are hardly ever going to field a full fledge squad, someone will be on the bench most of the time.Jones, like Akhtar, seems to miss more matches than actually get to play, and i think he will remain injury prone.Harmison & others too are often in and out. A full fledge England attack can be deadly and might still win matches for England (even though they have a third class batting lineup) but how often are we going to see all English players fit and playing a match is anyone's guess.

 

[GIMH]

Harmison & others too are often in and out. .

The same Harmison who will miss a Test match tomorrow for the first time since 2003?

As for "third class batting line-up" that's just plain harsh, sure batting isn't our strong point, but if you want to dismiss Tescothick, Pietersen, Flintoff, Strauss as third class, that's your mistake - batting depth is our problem.

You son't seem so keen on the English really.

 

[silentstriker]

You could pretty well say the same thing about India and Pakistan - the only time they ever seem to win is in the subcontinent.

Yes, and we've been saying that forever......

Oh really?

1st Test in Pakistan - well on top until last day
2nd Test - Drawn, but still in with a chance of a win on the 5th morning
3rd Test - took it to the 5th afternoon.
1st Test in India - Always well on top of the game
2nd Test - On level terms till at least the 4th afternoon.

So how is that "not being competitive at all"?

THey are definatly competitive, but they just find ways to lose (ala India outside the subcontinent).

 

[silentstriker]

As for "third class batting line-up" that's just plain harsh, sure batting isn't our strong point, but if you want to dismiss Tescothick, Pietersen, Flintoff, Strauss as third class, that's your mistake - batting depth is our problem.

Maybe not third class (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh), but definatly second class. How many batsman average 50 in the English side (compared to India, Australia, etc)? They don't have to have as many good batsman to be competitive as their pace attack at full strength is the best in the world (they do need a world class spinner though), but they do need at least one Dravid-like influence in the middle order.

In any case:

1) Australia
2) Pakistan
3) India/England

We will know within the next year, who is really who.

 

[Jono]

People talking about England being competitive in the sub-continent, India aren't walk-overs outside the sub-continent either. The last time they were beaten comprehensively was against NZ in 2002/03. They have a totally different team now.

 

[honestbharani]

yep, but don't allow facts like that get in the way of their arguments or anything...



Was kidding there.

 

[silentstriker]

i rate England better than India or Pakistan

A 2-0 series loss by England to Pakistan and a probable 2-0 loss to India undoubtedly means that England are better than India and Pakistan.


You guys are the English version of IndianByHeart.