ok so considering NZ played out a draw series against australia in australia they are better the SA who got whitewashed. your inane comparisons dont work at all.chicane said:
and england too have a promising batting lineup......and englands bowling lineup is far better than indias in england!chicane said:
if your batting lineup was so good then howcome they all failed in NZ?they should've been more than capable to cope with those conditionschicane said:
Yeah and India had to face these conditions too....and did better.tooextracool said:
I think the wicket had pace and bounce till the final day. Yeah so Australia won the match, because of one session of poor batting from the Indians.....Do I need to remind you of Sehwag's innings? 195 from 225 odd balls with 25 fours and five sixes. He had them on his feet till he threw it away. And if you'll notice he's learnt to control himself, during his 309, he spet almost half an hour in the 180's and 190's.tooextracool said:
Yeah you are. You have no clue...tooextracool said:
New Zealand wer obviously more used to the conditions. Think TEC think...tooextracool said:
Not in extreme propotions.tooextracool said:
You don't know the difference between the 2002 side and the current one.....Under Carl Hooper then they were better.tooextracool said:
tooextracool said:
You'll have to face a better attack because of Lehmann?! Sure he's handy but oh..... 
umm do you not read??it rained all day and india didnt get to bat at all in those conditions!!chicane said:Yeah and India had to face these conditions too....and did better.
pace and bounce doesnt necessary mean a pitch isnt flat....the bounce was consistent and there wasnt any movement. you dont see teams getting more than 550 runs on a wicket that wasnt flat!!chicane said:
absolutely...so brett lee and gillespie were in the form of their life...no wonder lee got hammered in SL was dropped. and brad williams was also brilliant which explains why the zimbabwians smakced him around the park.chicane said:
im sorry but this is the stupidest post of the year....wherever india plays abroad be it zimbabwe or england the home team will be more suited to the wickets than the opposition!!! if india couldnt play in those conditions in nz how will they handle the swinging conditions in england??chicane said:
yep so now its non in extreme proportions...dont be ridiculous.chicane said:
of course...cuffy and dillon were far better bowlers than the ones they have now.chicane said:
umm he is quite a handy batsman! im guessing you dont read much...chicane said:
which explains why they came back last time with a respectable 1-1 draw as opposed to indias 2-0 drubbing.chicane said:
please dont comment on cricket that you didnt watch.....chicane said:
quote:Yeah but don't get too carried away by how England are doing against NZ now at home, when they play in NZ they may well falter in those extreme conditions like they did in Sri Lanka.chicane said:
Shows just how much of the game you saw...tooextracool said:
You see Australia doing it...tooextracool said:
You didn't see that game....it shows beause Gillespie didn't play in that game.tooextracool said:
The conditions in New Zealand were far worse than in England. We didn't do too badly in England either. Like look at South Africa, they weren't half as bad in England as they were in New Zealand.tooextracool said:
If you have no clue what you're talking about and what others are then at least don't be arrogant.tooextracool said:
Dillon wasn't too bad then, they had Collins too...he wasn't too bad. Fidel Edwards and Jermaine Lawson were so poor in the previous test. Plus they had a better captain and their batting was performing better.tooextracool said:
We were talking about the bowling attack. Don't post irrelevant garbage, then accuse others for not reading.tooextracool said:
you just said that when england went to NZ they would get hammered!!you dont seem to read what you write!!chicane said:
I made it clear that i was just quoting what you said.tooextracool said:
quite a witty answer.....(hopes you read the sarcasm)chicane said:
umm i was talking about the entire series....australia played with an understrength bowling attack!!and dont use my comments when its barely even relevant.chicane said:
if your batting was that good it should be able to cope with all conditions....a large part about a good batting side is being able to adjust to the conditionschicane said:
2-2 in ENG and 1-1 in NZchicane said:
the thing is you dont have a clue what you are talking about either.chicane said:
so he suddenly became so bad that he didnt merit a place in the sidechicane said:
collins was only half the bowler he is now....remind me how many wickets did he take in that series??chicane said:
look at some highlights from the series against england...chicane said:
who didnt play against englandchicane said:
perhaps that had something to do with playing against a better bowling lineup??chicane said:
no we were talking about the fact that australia had an understrength side against india....lehmann missed out that series too..chicane said:
so that comparison of yours goes down the drainchicane said:
Resort to that when you have no more trash to say.....and not funny either.tooextracool said:
Yeah well first learn not to change topics abrubtly. We were talking about Lee bowling to them at Melbourne. Now you resort to changing the subject!tooextracool said:
It's the best in most conditions. Even Australia can't play spin for nuts! That doesn't mean they aren't a strong batting side. Think and then post.tooextracool said:
But they clearly struggled more.tooextracool said:
On the contrary, and you are in fact so tedious that it gets to me sometimes.tooextracool said:
Yes. And I really didn't say he was very good then either. He was a lot batter than he is now. He's always had a sorry attitude, but he was better then.tooextracool said:
Sure if it suits your arguement say anything.tooextracool said:
No one's debating the fact that the England bowling overall is superior. But the WI batting was in far better shape then...tooextracool said:
Let's not get into that stupid arguement again this thread is already a mess, both teams were understrength. And Lehmann's replacement played some of the most valuable knocks for them....so don't start crying about that now.tooextracool said:
