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

[vic_orthdox]

Fail to see how de Villiers walks into the England side tbh. He's behind Trott and Pietersen for me, not too much difference between him and Bell.

There's no way in the world, even though he's improved, that I'd pick Ian Bell ahead of AB DeVilliers.

To put it in perspective, whilst Trott has averaged 64 since his entry into Test cricket, AB DeVilliers has been averaging 64.12 since the beginning of 2008, over 32 Test matches.

 

[vic_orthdox]

According to ICC rankings

1) India
3) England

Please, everyone's aware of the rankings. If you are going to respond to a different argument by referring to the rankings every time, then you are just trolling for a reaction. Please don't do it again.

 

[Bun]

Please, everyone's aware of the rankings. If you are going to respond to a different argument by referring to the rankings every time, then you are just trolling for a reaction. Please don't do it again.

He was responding to a post which used icc ranking to support a set of arguements. Poor form calling that trolling.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He was responding to a post which used icc ranking to support a set of arguements. Poor form calling that trolling.

He's diverting the argument and trying to elicit a reaction, it's textbook. Won't be further discussed.

 

[Burgey]

There's no way in the world, even though he's improved, that I'd pick Ian Bell ahead of AB DeVilliers.

To put it in perspective, whilst Trott has averaged 64 since his entry into Test cricket, AB DeVilliers has been averaging 64.12 since the beginning of 2008, over 32 Test matches.

This is the thing now with so many matches. These guys get in the it primes or in rich form, and they can pile on thousands of runs in so little time. Just as the scheduling means when you're out of form you get no break, it also means when you're in form you can just fill your boots.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wow, just fully read through this thread.

The cheerleading has been absolutely piss poor IMO.

Thoughts on my posts?

 

[M0rphin3]

@ Goughie.

England has probably the most 'complete' sides in cricket right now, but I'd still say not good enough to get 20 Indian wickets consistently. Would back them to be the dominant side once the trio of Sach, Dravid and Lax retires though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

For mine, I still think that England are more prone to a collapse than most, and I can see that costing them one Test in the home series. I'd still back them to be the better side over the series, but I wouldn't be surprised to see India manage to draw the series.

India are great at grinding teams down over a series, they play a very attritional style of cricket, and I can't see England winning two games over in India. If it were a three game series over in India, I think they'd be a good chance of getting a 1-1 result, and 1-0 is possible. They have to strike early.

 

[Jono]

Well because he isn't that good. If bowling tightly = being the best in the world while averaging closer to 40 than 30 in a series, then I'll dust off the creams.

He's a decent bowler but he isn't that good IMO. Sorry Jono, I realise I have to see things precisely as everyone else does. He's decent. I don't believe he's a world beater. That being so, if he's the best spinner in the world right now then it reflects poorly on where spinning is at.

It's an opinion, that's all.

My point was that you never really went into why you don't rate him, and then suddenly whilst I'm visiting my gf's grandmother at a nursing home, I receive an sms justifying why you don't rate him, which made more sense.

Previously you kind of just laughed when he was mentioned.

Anyway, he's already helped England win a test match, and importantly, the Sydney test is still to come. Will not be surprised if he averages closer to 30 by the end of the series.

 

[kingjulian]

Over-hyping the team's ability, the moment a little bit of success comes their way, is a typically British thing to do. As always, i don't expect England to keep this form up.

To beat the Aussies when they are arguably at an all time low (losing a test to pakistan and getting wiped clean in India etc..) England had to go through a preparation that would not have been out of place in Rocky. They landed in Australia nearly a month ahead.

Unfortunately, you don't get to do that in international Cricket all the time. India had to go in and defend number 1 position in South Africa with no practice tour match and 1 week of acclimatisation. English cricketers are prima donnas with very little tolerance for the hardwork that is required to be number 1 in world cricket for long. SA, Sri Lanka, India and Aus have better chance of becoming a dominant team like Waugh's Australia team was....but there is still a long way to go for these teams to get there.

I don't think any country has the right to claim undisputed number 1 at this point, but to call the current number 1 as easy opponents is pushing it. Let's face it England beat a team that is below them in the ranking.....there is nothing to crow about.

Anyway the gauntlet has been thrown down and lets see what India can do about this....

 

[Furball]

Over-hyping the team's ability, the moment a little bit of success comes their way, is a typically British thing to do. As always, i don't expect England to keep this form up.

To beat the Aussies when they are arguably at an all time low (losing a test to pakistan and getting wiped clean in India etc..) England had to go through a preparation that would not have been out of place in Rocky. They landed in Australia nearly a month ahead.

Unfortunately, you don't get to do that in international Cricket all the time. India had to go in and defend number 1 position in South Africa with no practice tour match and 1 week of acclimatisation. English cricketers are prima donnas with very little tolerance for the hardwork that is required to be number 1 in world cricket for long. SA, Sri Lanka, India and Aus have better chance of becoming a dominant team like Waugh's Australia team was....but there is still a long way to go for these teams to get there.

I don't think any country has the right to claim undisputed number 1 at this point, but to call the current number 1 as easy opponents is pushing it. Let's face it England beat a team that is below them in the ranking.....there is nothing to crow about.

Anyway the gauntlet has been thrown down and lets see what India can do about this....

If they're primadonnas then why the **** did they arrive in Australia a month early and play 3 First Class warm up games before the Test series started?

 

[vic_orthdox]

To beat the Aussies when they are arguably at an all time low (losing a test to pakistan and getting wiped clean in India etc..) England had to go through a preparation that would not have been out of place in Rocky. They landed in Australia nearly a month ahead.

Unfortunately, you don't get to do that in international Cricket all the time. India had to go in and defend number 1 position in South Africa with no practice tour match and 1 week of acclimatisation. English cricketers are prima donnas with very little tolerance for the hardwork that is required to be number 1 in world cricket for long.

What it says to me is that their cricket board is geared towards facilitating their Test team winning as often as possible, and giving them every chance to be a successful cricket side. India, especially, and other teams that use the limited preparation are trying to be successful in spite of their boards.

The preparation, including camps in Europe beforehand, indicate that England are prepared to do the hard work required to be a very good side. I think it's no co-incidence that they and the SA team of 08/09 were two of the best fielding sides to come over here in a long time, plus they were extremely fit (esp. their pace bowlers, many of whom managed long spells and only four bowlers were being used).

 

[Burgey]

My point was that you never really went into why you don't rate him, and then suddenly whilst I'm visiting my gf's grandmother at a nursing home, I receive an sms justifying why you don't rate him, which made more sense.

Previously you kind of just laughed when he was mentioned.

Anyway, he's already helped England win a test match, and importantly, the Sydney test is still to come. Will not be surprised if he averages closer to 30 by the end of the series.

I laughed when he was mentioned as potentially the leading wicket taker. There were other people saying that for England to win he would have to take 25 wickets, which was always crap.

SMS also said you have to buy me a steak. Haven't responded to that yet, ****.

 

[vcs]

What a thread!

22 pages and counting.

 

[Furball]

I laughed when he was mentioned as potentially the leading wicket taker. There were other people saying that for England to win he would have to take 25 wickets, which was always crap.

SMS also said you have to buy me a steak. Haven't responded to that yet, ****.

It's laughable the number of people who predicted that Swann or Broad would be our leading wicket taker.

Think you're being slightly unfair bagging him for his series average thus far though. Australia is a ****ing tough place to go and bowl spin.

 

[Jono]

Thoughts on my posts?

I don't think you've said anything controversial really. The only issue I have is that despite the lack of weakness in this English team, they have had horror tests in Perth vs Aust, in Centurion vs. SA and wherever Pakistan beat them. There clearly is a weakness there, because they are just as prone to a collapse or the opposition batting dominating as India are.

So whether they look better on paper, or appear to have less weaknesses, both teams are pretty damn even. That gives England the edge in home conditions, but India the edge in the fact they have the better results on the board so far.

 

[kingjulian]

What it says to me is that their cricket board is geared towards facilitating their Test team winning as often as possible, and giving them every chance to be a successful cricket side. India, especially, and other teams that use the limited preparation are trying to be successful in spite of their boards.

The preparation, including camps in Europe beforehand, indicate that England are prepared to do the hard work required to be a very good side. I think it's no co-incidence that they and the SA team of 08/09 were two of the best fielding sides to come over here in a long time, plus they were extremely fit (esp. their pace bowlers, many of whom managed long spells and only four bowlers were being used).

How long can you afford it? If you require a 2 to 3 month preparatory period before every tour to perform at that level, you are finished even before you started.

When you are the number 1 side in the world, every team wants to play you. ICC wants you to play, your board would want you to play and make some money while everything going well....you can't really afford that kind of preparation before every important tour.

It is very easy to criticize BCCI, but given the stature of the game in India and how much people want to see Cricket, i think they have done as well as any current board could have done.

 

[vcs]

I don't think you've said anything controversial really. The only issue I have is that despite the lack of weakness in this English team, they have had horror tests in Perth vs Aust, in Centurion vs. SA and wherever Pakistan beat them. There clearly is a weakness there, because they are just as prone to a collapse or the opposition batting dominating as India are.

So whether they look better on paper, or appear to have less weaknesses, both teams are pretty damn even. That gives England the edge in home conditions, but India the edge in the fact they have the better results on the board so far.

W. Indies in 2009, with their new setup, Flower, Strauss as captain etc., Headingley 2009 against Australia, can be added to the list.

Fact is, as things currently stand, England have negative head-to-heads against India, SL, and SA (and have lost in WI) and they should first look to put things right when they play SL next year. This is clearly an improved team, but they haven't put up enough results just yet. Winning/drawing in Sydney to take the series would clearly be a big feather in their cap though.

C'mon Australia!

 

[pasag]

What a thread!

22 pages and counting.

Used to be like this a couple of years back, although don't think I've ever seen so much comment on something so silly. Is Gough the new Botham? FTR I think England would beat India three times a week.

 

[Burgey]

It's laughable the number of people who predicted that Swann or Broad would be our leading wicket taker.

Think you're being slightly unfair bagging him for his series average thus far though. Australia is a ****ing tough place to go and bowl spin.

Yeah but I'm not bagging him. I'm saying he's a decent bowler, but if he's the best spinner in the world then the world has issues. Brilliant slipper too it should be said, and he adds bucketloads to that side with his attitude and lower order batting (not so much here but he hasn't been needed really). I just think as a bowler he's a bit over-hyped.

Not Johnson-level overhyped mind.