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

[Bun]

"Broad averages more than Ishant."

Broad averages worse than Sree. You didn't call him rubbish a few posts back?

 

[Jarquis]

I would say it's the other way. Individual players can easily go in and out of form, but team performances are built over a long period of time.

But team performances are entirely dependant on the player performances :/

 

[Shri]

India could only beat New Zealand 1-0 in India.

Could / Could not. Difference.

 

[Jarquis]

ffs, England could not beat West Indies in West Indies..

Yeah, with a different side to the current one
We're getting closer to the relevant stuff though! Well done you!

 

[Shri]

umadkat?

Yeah.

 

[Blaze 18]

Last I heard, one wicket can't lose you two matches at once. Nonetheless, we actually survived those games through batting, not weather. Not like a certain series I've seen India fans bring up ad nauseam in the last three and a half years. It doesn't matter, India beat us 1-0 in 07 and that's that, but if you want to try and go down that route, well, just don't.

It happened twice didn't it ? For the record, I only brought that up because some posters were being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Furball]

i think there are greater question marks about the whole english batting line up when the ball does a bit....esp the openers. (wanderers 2009, lords 2010, perth 2010)

The openers did ok in the first dig at Perth, it was the middle order which folded.

Also, lol at the timing of this post. South Africa have wrecked the Indian top order 3 times in this series.

 

[Shri]

The openers did ok in the first dig at Perth, it was the middle order which folded.

Also, lol at the timing of this post. South Africa have wrecked the Indian top order 3 times in this series.

Been wrecked twice themselves in 3 attempts. Not been better than India bar one innings where the strike bowler was injured.

 

[Jarquis]

It happened twice didn't it ? For the record, I only brought that up because some posters were being deliberately obtuse.

Yeah, and as I said before..

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.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Last I heard, one wicket can't lose you two matches at once. Nonetheless, we actually survived those games through batting, not weather. Not like a certain series I've seen India fans bring up ad nauseam in the last three and a half years. It doesn't matter, India beat us 1-0 in 07 and that's that, but if you want to try and go down that route, well, just don't.

The weather was the reason that England got close to bowling out India twice at Lords' anyway. If the sun was out during the last 3 days of the test, Oval would have happened a month earlier with Kumble joining Agarkar on the honors board.

 

[Furball]

Been wrecked twice themselves in 3 attempts. Not been better than India bar one innings where the strike bowler was injured.

Which says everything about the weaknesses in India's attack. Zaheer doesn't play and your bowling goes to ****.

England have played 3 different attacks in 4 Tests and have bowled Australia out for 481, 245, 304, 268, 309, 98 and 258. That's a pretty huge argument for the respective strength of England's attack.

 

[Prince EWS]

ffs, England could not beat West Indies in West Indies..

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2428345-post114.html

For the 23842834382nd time, no-one is saying that England's performances in the recent past have been better than India's, or that they deserve to be ranked higher. The point is that they've improved - both in terms of bringing in better players (Trott in for Bopara, Tremlett in for Sidebottom, etc) and existing players vastly improving their games (Anderson, Bell, Prior, Swann), so their performances over three years or two years or whenever they last played India in India may not be representative of their current team.

If you want to use the evidence of the recent past, or even if you want to be a dickhead and bring up games from 24 years ago like they mean something, then yeah, India have definitely been better than England. That's why they're ranked #1; no-one is denying that. However, that doesn't mean people can't say they think this England side - which is quite new in its current state and hasn't played a lot together - could be better than India going forward, or is better now but hasn't had the opportunity to show it yet. I think England have the best side in the world on paper and I expect them to go well - their results from a year plus ago aren't relevant because it was a different side. They've completely eliminated all the weak spots in their team, and I personally think that bodes well for them. Saying that shouldn't mean people take it as a personal attack on their team's history or a denial of a series that happened when what I'm saying about England wasn't even true.

 

[GIMH]

I'm with Marcuss. I don't think India would win a series between the two in India anywhere near as comfortably as you're all predicting.

Look, there was a series there two years ago. They beat us 1-0. Masterful chase that earns huge respect, and a draw. So really, a fairly close series, not a drubbing. Some things to consider:

1. Peter Moores was still our coach
2. Kevin Pietersen was captainb
3. It was Swann's debut series
4. Anderson has improved no end since then, Broad is a lot better (without checking I think he may have only played one of the matches), and then you have Tremlett, Finn, Bresnan, who have all done okay, who didn't play in that series.
5. There was no Trott so we were persevering with Bell at #3. Trott, to repeat an earlier point, now has the second highest batting average EVER, and Bell is just so much better down the order.
6. Prior's glovework in the last eighteen months means he is pretty much a different player than he was back then,

So basically - yeah, India would be favourites, but given the improvements we've made since the 2008 series, it's silly to say we would be drubbed.

 

[Blaze 18]

In the last 18 months, Broad has 53 @ 32, Ishant has 35 @ 39 and Sree has 24 @ 42.
Broad's career stats don't accurately represent his current level of ability IMHO. I'm not a big Broad fan and I wasn't convinced he deserved his place in England's 2009 Ashes side, but since then he's been a much improved bowler, I've always said in hindsight his coming of age series was the West Indies away.

As for your latter point, I don't know if you're deliberately forgetting the fact that England themselves are more than capable of posting huge totals?

If we going to be using recent statistics, then can I bring up Harbhajan's two centuries and claim that in him we have the best all-rounder in the world ? See, if we start using statistics, then we might as well keep discussing till the cows come home. I ask you - why eighteen months ? Why not twenty ? Thirty ? Forty ? Or, why not just consider their most recent match ?

I am not deliberately forgetting anything - England are more than capable of huge totals, but if the conditions are in favour of the bowlers, then I would expect India's bowlers to do reasonably well - I don't think England's batting line-up is stronger than South Africa's.

 

[Burgey]

Have to agree with Gough really. India are rapidly aging, frankly. Turning into Dad's Army really, and only have one decent bowler right now. England 3-1.

 

[silentstriker]

So do I.

Shocking.


I think they can beat India too, and no one said they can't. We're talking about the relative likelyhood. I said it was even and could go either way. So certainly I think they can.

The bolded statement is such nonsense. Your basically shortening the batting line-up by one versus arguably the longest batting line-up in the world.

It's already shortened by one. Seen who comes out to bat at that position? I'd stand by that statement.

Well we don't have the series won yet, but let's jump ahead and assume we will (which is a big assumption, but still). Tell me, if India went to Australia and won, what would you think? You wouldn't see it as a huge achievement if their ranking was low?

Yes, would. But because it's something that I've been wishing and hoping for all my life. If they beat them at their current rating, I'd see it as a symbolic achievement rather than a massive cricketing one. Winning in SA would be by far the bigger cricketing task right now, and winning in England too probably.

Such nonsense, who cares where the Aussies are ranked? They've lost one Test series at home in about fifteen years. Any side would kill to win there. If we finish the deal, it's massive, and yeah, we will make a lot out of it.

As you should. Ashes are huge. The rivalry is amazing. Winning in Pakistan for India would be big regardless of how crap they were (and it was a big deal when they did a few years back).

if India manage to win in Australia next time you go over there, I'll be sure to check the rankings and bring it up when you all crow about it.

Meh, more things than pure rankings come into play where emotion is concerned.

Steyn is the best pacer in the world, pretty much accepted as a consensus. Anderson is second. Perhaps less of a consensus but you've got to clutch straws pretty hard to get away from it.

Zaheer > Anderson (though not by a great distance....Anderson has been bowling fantastic). You can call it clutching straws all you want. Look at his record, and the type of wickets he bowls on, and the support he gets.

 

[Furball]

If we going to be using recent statistics, then can I bring up Harbhajan's two centuries and claim that in him we have the best all-rounder in the world ? See, if we start using statistics, then we might as well keep discussing till the cows come home. I ask you - why eighteen months ? Why not twenty ? Thirty ? Forty ? Or, why not just consider their most recent match ?

I am not deliberately forgetting anything - England are more than capable of huge totals, but if the conditions are in favour of the bowlers, then I would expect India's bowlers to do reasonably well - I don't think England's batting line-up is stronger than South Africa's.

South Africa and India's best players are better than their English counterparts, but their weaknesses are weaker than England's.

England have a much stronger bowling attack than both sides though.

 

[dhillon28]

Well I don't see you as "Substantial favourites". Unhelpful pitches and a **** bowling attack against our batsmen won't see you win too many, no matter how many runs you make.

You were a correct lbw decision away from drawing to Australia at home, who we've then gone and comprehensively outplayed in their backyard.

but if a correct lbw decisions had been given before that to ishant, then we'd have never been in the position of as you say 'a correct lbw decision away from losing to aus'

also now rainas out of this indian team, the replacements that are lined up to replace him mean that there will be another world beater batsmen that the opposition has to bowl out before they get 10 indian wickets.

india have been carrying yuvraj, raina (5 games) and dravid for a while and still done resonably well in the last year or so....once we get our bench players in the 1st team the indian batting lineup has the potential to be a nightmare for opposition bowlers.

 

[Furball]

but if a correct lbw decisions had been given before that to ishant, then we'd have never been in the position of as you say 'a correct lbw decision away from losing to aus'.

Should've referred it.

 

[Blaze 18]

Yeah, and as I said before..

I am sorry, but you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. Technically, India beat Australia 2-0.