***Official*** India in England

[Anil]

Interesting stuff from Pathan:



Doesn't admit it but doesn't deny it. There have been reports like that for years, and its quite disgusting IMO if true. Ganguly is pretty much the only one of our seniors that's known to consistently back up the youngsters. And Kumble too, but he isn't all that popular anyway.

but the way he is putting it, he is clearly insinuating it right whether he is actually stating it or not? that sounds ridiculous to me....if he was really scared or if there was nothing going on, i think he would've either denied it or been more diplomatic in his comments....this is more like he wanted suspicion to fall on some unnamed seniors but he doesn't actually state anything or name anyone...doesn't sound very straightforward to me...

 

[Turbinator]

Interesting stuff from Pathan:

Doesn't admit it but doesn't deny it. There have been reports like that for years, and its quite disgusting IMO if true. Ganguly is pretty much the only one of our seniors that's known to consistently back up the youngsters. And Kumble too, but he isn't all that popular anyway.

Ganguly, Kumble, Dravid, Tendulkar won't do such a thing imo.

My guess would be Harbhajan and/or Yuvraj. Both have a short temper. You always here Yuvraj beating up someone, along with his friends, at parties and stuff on the news. And we all know how Harbhajan behaves on the field.

 

[Turbinator]

You've got some brass neck, you 'av.

Even I don't constantly go around saying "blimey, I never knew you liked B*Witched!" ATT when I've B*Witcheded someone.

Tbh I got him hard during the RSA/India series. He's getting his revenge.

 

[viktor]

Interesting stuff from Pathan:



Doesn't admit it but doesn't deny it. There have been reports like that for years, and its quite disgusting IMO if true. Ganguly is pretty much the only one of our seniors that's known to consistently back up the youngsters. And Kumble too, but he isn't all that popular anyway.

Tendulkar jealous of and bullying Irfan?? I can't imagine that.
It could be Zaheer and AA, though.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Moores busy defending the indefensible - England's garbage over rate when they're supposed to be going for the win. Less than 15 an hour on the last day with Panesar bowling nearly half the overs. Absolutely shambolic it is, it's ridiculous how people just accept it - it's not good enough. England are just reducing their own chances of winning for no reason, they're just throwing it away. England should have rushed through their overs, Vaughan doesn't need to change the bloody field every 2 balls.

It's a joke. There is no reason at all why England could not have rushed through the overs as quickly as they could, but instead they didn't - no good reason why, they just decided reducing their chances by 10-20% wasn't worth the effort. This sort of generosity has been happening for ages, if it's not pissing around before a declaration it's declaring at a shockingly stupid and pointless time when you should be batting on (but quickly).

 

[silentstriker]

Moores busy defending the indefensible - England's garbage over rate when they're supposed to be going for the win. Less than 15 an hour on the last day with Panesar bowling nearly half the overs. Absolutely shambolic it is, it's ridiculous how people just accept it - it's not good enough. England are just reducing their own chances of winning for no reason, they're just throwing it away. England should have rushed through their overs, Vaughan doesn't need to change the bloody field every 2 balls.

It's a joke. There is no reason at all why England could not have rushed through the overs as quickly as they could, but instead they didn't - no good reason why, they just decided reducing their chances by 10-20% wasn't worth the effort. This sort of generosity has been happening for ages, if it's not pissing around before a declaration it's declaring at a shockingly stupid and pointless time when you should be batting on (but quickly).

Agreed. Slow over rates are hardly the sole problem of England though. I remember Ganguly being penalized for the same thing despite bowling two spinners for most of the day...no excuse.

 

[Raghav]

Both teams are equally as useless, you would have quite a hard time choosing between them.

Watching aussie matches is useless considering they will be onesided everytime.

 

[pup11]

Watching aussie matches is useless considering they will be onesided everytime.

Atleast you get to see good entertaining cricket played from one side

 

[pup11]

Both English (excluding K.P.) and (FAMED) Indian batting really failed badly and if anything made the opposition bowling look good, England need to do something really quickly about their fitness problems, they are a team which does not play too much international cricket when compared to other sides around the world but still they have the maximum injured players.As for India the senior pro's need to step up if India wants to compete with England.

 

[pasag]

Moores busy defending the indefensible - England's garbage over rate when they're supposed to be going for the win. Less than 15 an hour on the last day with Panesar bowling nearly half the overs. Absolutely shambolic it is, it's ridiculous how people just accept it - it's not good enough. England are just reducing their own chances of winning for no reason, they're just throwing it away. England should have rushed through their overs, Vaughan doesn't need to change the bloody field every 2 balls.

It's a joke. There is no reason at all why England could not have rushed through the overs as quickly as they could, but instead they didn't - no good reason why, they just decided reducing their chances by 10-20% wasn't worth the effort. This sort of generosity has been happening for ages, if it's not pissing around before a declaration it's declaring at a shockingly stupid and pointless time when you should be batting on (but quickly).

Spot on for mine, really defies belief tbh.

 

[Pratters]

Spot on for mine, really defies belief tbh.

I didn't like how the cricinfo headline said that England deserved to win.

 

[honestbharani]

I didn't like how the cricinfo headline said that England deserved to win.

well, tbh, they did.... They were 1 wicket away and even they had got that out, it was a rather poor decision from Bucknor that saved us in the end. I think when a team has the other 9 down and sees 3 and a half hours play washed out in the last innings can always think they deserved to win.


Of course, I see where you are coming from with the point being about over rates and all and while I agree with all that, I still think England deserved to win this match. They were definitely much better than us, AFAIC.

 

[pup11]

I didn't like how the cricinfo headline said that England deserved to win.

Whats wrong with that mate, they played better cricket than India (even with a 2nd string bowling line-up) and they deserved to win and judging by the stupid shots the Indian tailenders played in the 2nd innings i think they felt the same

 

[Pratters]

well, tbh, they did.... They were 1 wicket away and even they had got that out, it was a rather poor decision from Bucknor that saved us in the end. I think when a team has the other 9 down and sees 3 and a half hours play washed out in the last innings can always think they deserved to win.


Of course, I see where you are coming from with the point being about over rates and all and while I agree with all that, I still think England deserved to win this match. They were definitely much better than us, AFAIC.

For me they did not because the did not show urgency at times in the game when they should have. I am not debating whether they deserved to win or not though. That can be debated.

I did not like cricinfo putting in they headline that the deserved to win for the fact that whether they deserved to win can be a point of debate. Such judgemental words (which are debatable) in headlines of match reporting is undesired for me.

 

[Dasa]

For me they did not because the did not show urgency at times in the game when they should have. I am not debating whether they deserved to win or not though. That can be debated.

I did not like cricinfo putting in they headline that the deserved to win for the fact that whether they deserved to win can be a point of debate. Such judgemental words (which are debatable) in headlines of match reporting is undesired for me.

Agreed. It would look better if the headline was just 'Rain denies England win' without the 'deserved' in there imo.

 

[pasag]

well, tbh, they did.... They were 1 wicket away and even they had got that out, it was a rather poor decision from Bucknor that saved us in the end. I think when a team has the other 9 down and sees 3 and a half hours play washed out in the last innings can always think they deserved to win.


Of course, I see where you are coming from with the point being about over rates and all and while I agree with all that, I still think England deserved to win this match. They were definitely much better than us, AFAIC.

Yeah but being the better side and playing the better cricket doesn't mean you deserve to win the Test match, if you mucked around with the ball and you took your time and bowled Michael Vaughan when the issue with the light was consistency from a meter, (it had nothing to do with pace imo, although debatable) then quite frankly you didn't deserve to win the Test, imo.

 

[adharcric]

For me they did not because the did not show urgency at times in the game when they should have. I am not debating whether they deserved to win or not though. That can be debated.

I did not like cricinfo putting in they headline that the deserved to win for the fact that whether they deserved to win can be a point of debate. Such judgemental words (which are debatable) in headlines of match reporting is undesired for me.

Completely agree. By the way, England did not outplay us by such a large margin - the match went down to the final 35 overs IIRC, even with India's best batsman being given out incorrectly. England were certainly better but it was far from a landslide and they should've wrapped it up before the rain came around. Anyways, on to Trent Bridge.

 

[Gloucefan]

Yeah but being the better side and playing the better cricket doesn't mean you deserve to win the Test match, if you mucked around with the ball and you took your time and bowled Michael Vaughan when the issue with the light was consistency from a meter, (it had nothing to do with pace imo, although debatable) then quite frankly you didn't deserve to win the Test, imo.

I have no problems with 'England Deserved to Win' because they did, India were saved by the weather and nothing else. Whose to say that if we rushed through the overs the bowling would have been anywhere near good enough to dismiss anyone, that argument is far from conclusive imo. Sometimes weather stops play, simple and annoying fact about cricket.

You might debate whether England deserved to win but one thing is for certain and that is India did not deserve a draw. It doesn't matter now anyway second Test is Friday.

 

[pasag]

I have no problems with 'England Deserved to Win' because they did, India were saved by the weather and nothing else. Whose to say that if we rushed through the overs the bowling would have been anywhere near good enough to dismiss anyone, that argument is far from conclusive imo. Sometimes weather stops play, simple and annoying fact about cricket.

You might debate whether England deserved to win but one thing is for certain and that is India did not deserve a draw. It doesn't matter now anyway second Test is Friday.

Yeah, if England had rushed through their overs and done everything possible then I'd have no problem with saying they were 'robbed' and deserved to win, my only gripe is that they didn't and therefore one could argue that they didn't deserve to win because of that. At the very least I'm not sympathetic to them, as I would have been had they not 'mucked around.'

 

[Pratters]

I have no problems with 'England Deserved to Win' because they did, India were saved by the weather and nothing else.

You might debate whether England deserved to win but one thing is for certain and that is India did not deserve a draw.

You win tests matches. If you cannot, they are draws. A lot of the times Sri Lanka had their matches end in draws because they did not have bowlers capable enough to win matches for them. I am not saying that England = Sri Lanka of the old in ability here mind. Would you say that those teams which had draws with Sri Lanka did not deserve the draws? It requires a lot of charecteristics - proactiveness, cricketing acumen, ability among others to be able to win. The question usually is whether a team deserved to win and if it did not, the match rightfully ends in a draw. Whether the opposition deserved a draw or not is not significant for me. The win is for the taking and if you cannot do it, it ends in a draw.

Whose to say that if we rushed through the overs the bowling would have been anywhere near good enough to dismiss anyone, that argument is far from conclusive imo. Sometimes weather stops play, simple and annoying fact about cricket.

For me it is inexcusable if you are slow in over rates in such a scenario. If possible, you should be faster than normal. What great things were there to think? They had to just get the men in catching positions and attack really. Fact is, they weren't urgent at various points in the match. The English playing a bit defensively and wasting overs while aiming to give India 400 to chase was another approach I could not understand.