• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England can beat India "every day of week": Gough

ImpatientLime

ImpatientLime

International Regular
gvenkat said:
the fact of the matter is england can't bat spin bowlers to save their lives. They will be eaten for breakfast, lunch and dinner alive by the indian spinners if the series were to happen in india.

If england claim they are better at fast bowling than india, look what happened to south africa in durban. Any day of the week zak, sreesanth and ishant are better than the english bowlers. Of course sree needs to get his head examined. That is a different issue altogether.

And darren gough has a big mouth and he runs it like a madman. England will be beaten to pulp in india and india would be hard to beat in english conditions. Gough can put that in his pipe and smoke.

That is what i meant to say when i said england have not beaten india since 1996 at home and 1984 away.
Click to expand...
awta.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
gvenkat said:
The fact of the matter is England can't bat spin bowlers to save their lives. They will be eaten for breakfast, lunch and dinner alive by the Indian spinners if the series were to happen in India.

If England claim they are better at fast bowling than India, Look what happened to South Africa in Durban. Any day of the week Zak, Sreesanth and Ishant are better than the English bowlers. Of Course Sree needs to get his head examined. That is a different Issue altogether.

And Darren Gough has a big mouth and he runs it like a madman. England will be beaten to pulp in India and India would be hard to beat in English conditions. Gough can put that in his pipe and smoke.

That is what I meant to say when I said England have not beaten India Since 1996 at home and 1984 away.
Click to expand...
Huge amounts of facepalm. Give me a shout when you arrive at the present.
 
Blaze 18

Blaze 18

Banned
Marcuss said:
Technically we were 2 wickets away from that scoreline, one in each Test.
Small difference in the fact that when South Africa were in that situation they couldn't get us out... Australia were illegitimately denied a wicket which would've won them the Test and drawn the series when they had India 9 down.
Click to expand...
And they shouldn't have had India nine down in the first place. Hey, India were "illegitimately" denied a series win in Australia back in 2007-2008.

Nah, let us ignore that. Let us just consider the arguments that favour us.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
I don't buy this 'weakest link' theory. Going by that, considering Ishant Sharma and Sreesanth, India should be ranked #8. Being good vs. great in an area matters, and it can (and does) make up for other deficiencies - you can't just look at the weakest link and frankly, I don't think it's even the most important place to look,
Click to expand...
I don't buy into it as much as saying "you're only as good as your worst player" which is an overly simplistic cliche that fails to take into account several variables.

That's different to what I'm saying though. If you put me in the England team and then compared it to Zimbabwe, England's worst player would be worse than Zimbabwe's (unless they picked Dabengwa :ph34r:) and the above theory would hilariously suggest that Zimbabwe were the better team. However, Zimbabwe would still have a lot more weak areas so an analysis of the teams' weaknesses would still reveal the better team. There's a big difference between comparing the worst player of two teams, and comparing the overall weaknesses. I think that weaknesses are more important at extremely high levels of team sport (eg. Test cricket) than ridiculous strengths. The obvious argument against this would be the fact that India have achieved #1 status despite some pretty obvious weaknesses, but I'd argue that this was achieved because every team in world cricket had weak areas to exploit at the time.

That's not to say I don't think teams can make up weaknesses with ridiculously good players to an extent; I just don't think it's quite as possible as you do and I also think it leads to inconsistency. South Africa are a good example of this.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
GingerFurball said:
You're right, it's not close. You're just picking the wrong attack.

The difference between Steyn and Anderson this year has been negligible, and over the past 3 years the difference is between a potential ATG bowler and a world class bowler. That's far smaller than the difference between Swann, a world class spinner, and Harris, a barely Test standard spinner.
Click to expand...
1. DW Steyn 897 + 15. PL Harris 585 = 16. 1482 = 8. 741
2. GP Swann 814 + 4. JM Anderson 752 = 6. 1566 = 3. 783

According to the ICC rankings
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Blaze 18 said:
And they shouldn't have had India nine down in the first place. Hey, India were "illegitimately" denied a series win in Australia back in 2007-2008.

Nah, let us ignore that. Let us just consider the arguments that favour us.
Click to expand...
Yeah because that series is really relevant when talking about England/Aus/India right now
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Prince EWS said:
That's not to say I don't think teams can make up weaknesses with ridiculously good players to an extent; I just don't think it's quite as possible as you do and I also think it leads to inconsistency. South Africa are a good example of this.
Click to expand...
A counterexample would be India, who do have all those weak links but haven't lost a series in a while.
 
Blaze 18

Blaze 18

Banned
GingerFurball said:
Anderson's answering those questions in Australia. He's putting in the best series performance by a visiting quick to Australia in a long, long time.

How exactly is the difference between excellent and very good greater than the difference between very good and mediocre?
Click to expand...
The difference between an all-time great bowler and a very good bowler > the difference between very good and mediocre.

I love how you bring up Sehwag's record in England, South Africa and New Zealand (!!!), but very conveniently ignore Jimmy's awesome average of 45 in Asia. Too bad it isn't the batting average.
 
Last edited:
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Blaze 18 said:
The difference between an all-time great bowler and a very good bowler > the difference between very good and mediocre.

I love how you bring up Sehwag's record in England, South Africa and New Zealand (!!!), but very conveniently ignore Jimmy's awesome average of 45 in Asia. Too bad it isn't the batting average.
Click to expand...
I love how his record in India doesn't suit your argument, so you pull in his record in Sri Lanka as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top