***Official*** India in England

[PhoenixFire]

Yep, that's exactly what I thought, there is no chance MOnty would have said anything other than bog-standard Cliche Dross.

 

[The_Bunny]

This partnership being a real pain for India.

 

[Raghav]

A guy named Nikhil was suggesting England on cricinfo "India's inability to dismiss the tail: I reckon England should play 9 bowlers and 2 bits-n-pieces players against India in the tests. They'll score about 700/2 and then knock India twice over in no time."

 

[Raghav]

Denly's turn of attacking Indian bowlers is over and its turn for Bresnan

 

[PhoenixFire]

A guy named Nikhil was suggesting England on cricinfo "India's inability to dismiss the tail: I reckon England should play 9 bowlers and 2 bits-n-pieces players against India in the tests. They'll score about 700/2 and then knock India twice over in no time."

Haha what the hell?

 

[Raghav]

Haha what the hell?

seems a good plan though, considering India's inability to allow lower order batsman to settle

jk

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yeah, seems like something some journo would make up or take out of context. I imagine it went something like this:

Journo: Are you fearful of Sachin Tendulkar?
Monty: Well he's a champion player so he's always a danger, especially given the pitches probably won't suit my bowling all that much.

Headline: Monty Fears Tendulkar, Blasts Groundsmen


Obviously I'm just guessing there, but it seems a lot more likely than Monty admitting to being scared of Tendulkar and blasting the groundsmen. Monty is a confident fellow, but he doesn't take me as someone who disrespect the opposition in pre-match banter or try to create fire off the pitch, so he was probably just paying respect to the opposition when he said whatever he did.

Yea that's the sort of bollocks journalists come up with. Journalist incompetence transcends industries, nations etc.

I'd pretty much ignore any headline, opinion and any other guff. Only look at direct quotes and then take them with a pinch of salt.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Given English groundsmen's past records at creating turners when subcontinent sides visit, I'd be surprised if the pitches didn't have something anyway.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Given English groundsmen's past records at creating turners when subcontinent sides visit, I'd be surprised if the pitches didn't have something anyway.

Yes, very charitable are English groundsmen - unfortunately the generosity only extends to the away team.

Anyway amusing to see the 8th wicket put up a century partnership, also amusing is cricinfo bringing out all the stops to cover India's mickey mouse tour games so thoroughly when they can't be arsed with plenty of other stuff.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, very charitable are English groundsmen - unfortunately the generosity only extends to the away team.

Anyway amusing to see the 8th wicket put up a century partnership, also amusing is cricinfo bringing out all the stops to cover India's mickey mouse tour games so thoroughly when they can't be arsed with plenty of other stuff.

They've got bills to pay too .

And really, even this thread is a lot more active that a lot of the Test match threads, so you can hardly blame them for concentrating on what the people want....

 

[Raghav]

86.2 Khan to Bresnan, FOUR
86.1 Khan to Bresnan, FOUR

Bresnan's allout attack...Its 107 n.o

EDIT: 86.6 Khan to Bresnan, FOUR

 

[Sanz]

Anyway amusing to see the 8th wicket put up a century partnership, also amusing is cricinfo bringing out all the stops to cover India's mickey mouse tour games so thoroughly when they can't be arsed with plenty of other stuff.

What other Stuff ? Seriously what else was going on today ?

 

[Scaly piscine]

I wasn't referring to today, I was referring to stuff generally that they've not bothered to cover in anything like the detail which happen to be far more important.

Obviously Cricinfo's definition of 'important' is based largely on money.

 

[silentstriker]

I wasn't referring to today, I was referring to stuff generally that they've not bothered to cover in anything like the detail which happen to be far more important.

Obviously Cricinfo's definition of 'important' is based largely on money.

Isn't that like that for any organization that deals with entertainment, really?

 

[viktor]

I wasn't referring to today, I was referring to stuff generally that they've not bothered to cover in anything like the detail which happen to be far more important.

Obviously Cricinfo's definition of 'important' is based largely on money.

Yes it is. For example, they cover the English domestic scene more comprehensively than the Indian domestic scene. The reason is obviously because domestic cricket in England generates more interest than domestic cricket in India.
Though of course a case could be made for bias against us poor Indians..

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yes it is. For example, they cover the English domestic scene more comprehensively than the Indian domestic scene. The reason is obviously because domestic cricket in England generates more interest than domestic cricket in India.
Though of course a case could be made for bias against us poor Indians..

Well, kill me if I'm wrong, but isn't our FC of a much higher standard than Indian stuff?

 

[Sanz]

I wasn't referring to today, I was referring to stuff generally that they've not bothered to cover in anything like the detail which happen to be far more important.

Obviously Cricinfo's definition of 'important' is based largely on money.

Its also based on no. of fans logging into their websites to follow such events.

 

[Sanz]

Well, kill me if I'm wrong, but isn't our FC of a much higher standard than Indian stuff?

NO, not anymore. It has more money though and it definately is more professional.

 

[PhoenixFire]

NO, not anymore. It has more money though and it definately is more professional.

I'd disagree tbh, but then again, I don't know that much about the Indian FC scene

 

[Raghav]

NO, not anymore. It has more money though and it definately is more professional.

can u prove?