Have to agree, particularly given England won the toss and from all reports India batted worse than they have for donkeys years in their first innings.I think this was our only chance. We'll get slaughtered next time out. Kinda glad it's only a two-match rubber, rather lose 2-0 than 3-0
Yeah in hindsight I see exactly what you're saying but for me at the time the issues I had with the chase were Dravid who normally would anchor an innings is finished, Gambhir is still iffy at converting starts and we had to rely on Yuvi to do something of substance for us.
Ironically, had Dravid stayed in for a long period the chase might had actually been quite tight in terms of overs available, especially if you consider how slowly he's been scoring in the last 18 months or so.Yeah in hindsight I see exactly what you're saying but for me at the time the issues I had with the chase were Dravid who normally would anchor an innings is finished, Gambhir is still iffy at converting starts and we had to rely on Yuvi to do something of substance for us.
Obviously I should have taken into account Englands ability to show absolutely no backbone whatsoever at times but there you go.
Just chuffed I was shown to be too pessimistic
That was never going to happen. The chance of India batting-out the overs without scoring the runs was always close to zero.
There was still no real good reason to back India though - they were distinct second-favourites as of the fourth-day close. Just because you did and happened to be right doesn't mean the prediction was a sound one.
other day was thinking where were you
That's a fallacy Dicko, just because you judged England as favourites doesn't make it so, especially when the majority held the opposite opinion. I can see what you're trying to say, that if you were to play that day over again ten times, England would win six or seven of those. Unfortunately though, it doesn't work like that.
That's just not true, as the evidence i posted on bookmaker odds all but proves. More people were betting on India to win after close on day four than were betting on England to win, even though they were the same price. Have you got a bigger sample than those several hundred thousand people? Or do you just think most people had England as favourites because you did?
As silly as Dicko is at times, this is one of rare times he has a point. England were definitely favourites after setting India 387. Perhaps after Sehwag's blitz it was different, but certainly they were favourites at the end of the 3rd innings. I would've given India a 10% chance of getting there.
Look at the still-decent quality of the pitch, the relative quality of the teams, the momentum of the game, hell, look at what actually happened. If i were judging the odds i'd have had England as favourites for sure, but believe me- the bookmakers know better than me, you, or anyone without insider knowledge the likelihood of an event taking place. If you disagree with that, i challenge you to take them on in the other thread
Oh, certainly. But what that does prove is that marginally more people thought India would win than thought England would win. Which is surprising, but it's pretty impossible to argue with a sample that size.
India and England were the same price though i.e. you'd have won the same amount betting on India as you would have betting on England.
Most people don't bet on things they know nothing about, it's a surefire way to lose a lot of money. If they did, you'd have a really good margin for profit with the odds heavily swollen by thickos. And you're acutely aware that there's no such margin available.
