Who would win a test series between England and West Indies if play started tomorrow?

[Richard]

If you think pitch conditions is the only aspect of an Indian tour then you're mistaken, and knowing your knowledge of cricket, I'm sure you realise that there is plenty more to it than that which has resulted in many teams struggling there for many years now.

Of course there is, I was simply making the point that SA did conquer one of the variables of said tours (and one they damn well should not have had to face, it's poor groundsmanship IMO to allow the slightest possibility of a pitch like Newlands 2006\07 - and some West Indian groundsmen would do well to have some similar thoughts about how best to help their team).

 

[Richard]

You could say that about any team, but it's not how cricket works. Hell, you could say Australia aren't the best team in the world until they beat England, India, Pakistan and South Africa again. After all, it's been more than two years since they last played India in a test match, and they haven't faced Pakistan since Asif turned the corner, blah blah. It's just silly. Until England actually get beaten by somebody in convincing fashion they're the second best team in the world, because they've earned that place with consistent results in test cricket. In the last two seasons they've beaten South Africa away, Australia at home, Pakistan at home and drawn India away. The only real blemishes are an away loss in a fairly tight series to Pakistan and the home draw against Sri Lanka, along with the hammering they just copped in the Ashes.

Losing 5-0 to Australia doesn't indicate they aren't the second best side any more than losing 5-1 in 01/02 indicated South Africa wasn't the second best side. Of course, if England fail to beat the West Indies and India at home they'll lose the "clear number two" tag and it'll be up for grabs again, but for now it's pretty clear cut.

If failing to beat SL at home wasn't such an appalling aberration I'd agree with you.

But England allowed something to happen that had never happened before - once beaten in an away Test, Sri Lanka had never come back to draw the series - ever before.

Though they did do it again at the next available opportunity, which slightly softens the blow.

Losing in Pakistan was poor, too (look at their recent home record - and at how we lost), and I might be alone but I found it difficult to get too excited about the 1-1 draw in India - we dominated for far less of that series than we didn't, and ITE 1-1 wasn't a completely accurate reflection of the cricket played IMO.

Simple fact is, the only time England have played especially good cricket in the last 2 years was against a Pakistan side that was even more injury-depleted than us.

If we start next summer with Trescothick, Vaughan and Simon Jones (though the latter may require some sort of miracle) we can justifiably make the claim, but not without IMO.

 

[Richard]

There was one close test match, that's it. You can't call that a 'fairly tight series' based on that, England never had a chance of winning the 2nd or 3rd.

But we had almost got the draw in the bag in the Third before one of the worst collapses you could ever wish to see.

And had Bell and Pietersen batted a fraction longer we could justifiably have said the only thing that made the difference in the series was the poor run-chase at Multan.

 

[GIMH]

I'm not sure if I'm imagining it or not, but I'm sure at the close of play on day 4 of the 2nd test, it was felt that we had a decent chance of victory the next day.

Of course, I may have just deluded myself into this thought because I was probably being my usual over-optimistic self at the time. I do remember getting up on day 5 and being disappointed that we were scrapping for a draw, though, which suggests to me that if we had bowled well in the morning session of day five, we could have sneaked it. I'll go look up said scorecard now.

 

[Richard]

I know what it means. Anyone with any degree of common sense wouldn't take it as racist, but on this board they all cry "racist" at every opportunity. That's one of the reasons why many former members can't be bothered to post anymore.

There's a difference between "crying 'racist' at every opportunity" and saying a term such as peey-ay-kay-iy is racist. A big difference.

I'll say now I haven't the slightest clue what the term "dago" referrs to, but if it's as bad as **** IMO you shouldn't be using it.

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure if I'm imagining it or not, but I'm sure at the close of play on day 4 of the 2nd test, it was felt that we had a decent chance of victory the next day.

Of course, I may have just deluded myself into this thought because I was probably being my usual over-optimistic self at the time. I do remember getting up on day 5 and being disappointed that we were scrapping for a draw, though, which suggests to me that if we had bowled well in the morning session of day five, we could have sneaked it. I'll go look up said scorecard now.

I certainly also felt we had a chance going into day-five at Faisalabad - I had the exact same feeling when waking-up midway through the second-session.

The only game where we had no chance at all of victory for most of the game was Lahore, and even there, as I say, we damn well should've secured the draw.

 

[GIMH]

Well, Pakistan were 183-6 overnight on day 4, but with Inzamam unbeaten. Certainly there was still an outside chance of victory for us at that point, a few quick wickets could have meant a target of not much more than 200. I'd see the 1st and 2nd tests as close, personally, but obviously Pakistan deserved both their victories and the series and I'd never argue against that.

 

[andyc]

Whoops. Accidentally voted for the Windies. Was meant to be England. If it was ODI's my vote would stand though.

 

[Johnners]

in answer to the thread title....

England, by some distance

 

[Richard]

Well, Pakistan were 183-6 overnight on day 4, but with Inzamam unbeaten. Certainly there was still an outside chance of victory for us at that point, a few quick wickets could have meant a target of not much more than 200. I'd see the 1st and 2nd tests as close, personally, but obviously Pakistan deserved both their victories and the series and I'd never argue against that.

Oh, certainly they did - but equally with just a couple of tweaks to one session in the First and Third Tests and England would have won it and you certainly couldn't have begrudged them that, either.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There's a difference between "crying 'racist' at every opportunity" and saying a term such as peey-ay-kay-iy is racist. A big difference.

I'll say now I haven't the slightest clue what the term "dago" referrs to, but if it's as bad as **** IMO you shouldn't be using it.

It isn't anything at all to do with race, as used here it's just a slang term for badly written English, a term quite commonly used. If one user who is clearly not very bright (that's nothing to do with race either, it's just a fact) had not jumped in head first with the "racist twit" insult no one would have given it a second thought in those terms.

 

[Richard]

I certainly wouldn't.

As I say - I've never heard the term before and haven't a clue what it means.

Would be interested to know what Fiery feels is race-referential about the term?

Oh, and I'll add that I've never had reason to doubt that particular person's intelligence - quite the opposite in fact. Stumped, yes. Fiery, no.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I certainly wouldn't.

As I say - I've never heard the term before and haven't a clue what it means.

Would be interested to know what Fiery feels is race-referential about the term?

Oh, and I'll add that I've never had reason to doubt that particular person's intelligence - quite the opposite in fact. Stumped, yes. Fiery, no.

The word can be used as some sort insult to people in some European Countries, but even in those terms it's not racist. It's no different to Australian people calling all English people "poms" which if you want to take it literally is a highly offensive insult and refers to English immigrants now living in Australia or New Zealand. Australian people will use it to describe all Englishmen as "whinging poms" but of course we don't all scream "racist".

 

[Richard]

No, we just call them "convicts" in return (though C_C did once try to tell us that that was a deeply condescending term that all Australians hated, even though it's traded 50 times a day on this very site...) and be done with it.

Thanks for the update - not being Portugese or Polish I wouldn't know how they'd feel about it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No, we just call them "convicts" in return (though C_C did once try to tell us that that was a deeply condescending term that all Australians hated, even though it's traded 50 times a day on this very site...) and be done with it.

Thanks for the update - not being Portugese or Polish I wouldn't know how they'd feel about it.

If I go down the Polish Butchers in the high street and call him a "dago" he calls me a "great big English poof" and everyone's happy.

 

[Richard]

Now that is homophobic.

 

[Fiery]

I certainly wouldn't.

As I say - I've never heard the term before and haven't a clue what it means.

Would be interested to know what Fiery feels is race-referential about the term?

Oh, and I'll add that I've never had reason to doubt that particular person's intelligence - quite the opposite in fact. Stumped, yes. Fiery, no.

It's a very derogatory term for anyone of Italian, Spanish or Portuguese descent, about as offensive as "wog".
Oh and thanks for the last sentence. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[marc71178]

well thats the way i type and im not going to change just becoz some people get annoyed about it on a cricket forum

Even if the forum rules specify posting should be in English?

 

[Fiery]

Even if the forum rules specify posting should be in English?

It's hardly Swahili. Give him a break

 

[Fiery]

he calls me a "great big English poof"

Ah, now I'm getting a picture