Three horse race to be the best team in the world?

[GIMH]

Yes, but it is easier for a team to all contribute than one superhuman effort. Our attack doesn't get a lot of 5fers but have a tendency to all click together at one time or another, Lord's & Edgbaston in the 09 Ashes, Durban 09, Melbourne 10, the whole Pakistan series. And then you will occasionally, like in any team, get a magic spell, like Broad's at The Oval 09.

And if you want superhuman, well I don't know if you've been living under a rock but Alastair Cook just went to Australia and averaged six thousand.

 

[Furball]

Nah.. what I mean is that the chance of a great player getting 6-60 against a great team on a one off occassion, leadng to a win, sounds more probable than 2 good players getting 3-30 each and leading them to a win.. Put it this way, it is easier for ONE player to have an outstanding game than 2 in the same game... If you can really understand that, lol..

4th Test: Australia v England at Melbourne, Dec 26-29, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd rather be copying the blueprint of Australia in 2004 (you know, where they actually won the series as opposed to highlighting games won against India) and have contributions from as many as possible than relying on a few superhuman efforts to paper over cracks.

 

[honestbharani]

4th Test: Australia v England at Melbourne, Dec 26-29, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Lol.. I am talking about beating a "great" team..


So............

 

[honestbharani]

I'd rather be copying the blueprint of Australia in 2004 (you know, where they actually won the series as opposed to highlighting games won against India) and have contributions from as many as possible than relying on a few superhuman efforts to paper over cracks.

Again, you are missing the point. I do think the English side will be competitive in India if the series happened in the coming months or whatever...


What I meant was that, as a general rule, you are more likely to beat a "great" side through one off great performances from star players than through any concentrated team efforts... Say, the Aussie side of the noughties.. I know Ashes 2005 and how it was an all-round effort but the conditions favored them then. If you look at the wins of India against Australia in the same period, you will see what I mean...

 

[Furball]

Except England's attack in 2005 followed the same MO as the current lot. All 4 pacers were a constant threat, rather than just rely on one player to make a superhuman contribution. All the batsmen chipped in at various points during the series as well (with the exception of Bell.)

So once again, you fail, lulz.

 

[GIMH]

Again, you are missing the point. I do think the English side will be competitive in India if the series happened in the coming months or whatever...


What I meant was that, as a general rule, you are more likely to beat a "great" side through one off great performances from star players than through any concentrated team efforts... Say, the Aussie side of the noughties.. I know Ashes 2005 and how it was an all-round effort but the conditions favored them then. If you look at the wins of India against Australia in the same period, you will see what I mean...

Ah..we win The Ashes in 05 because conditions favoured us....but the India wins against Australia in that period (2001, wasn't it?!!) are how it should be done..right...lol

 

[Furball]

Again, you are missing the point. I do think the English side will be competitive in India if the series happened in the coming months or whatever...


What I meant was that, as a general rule, you are more likely to beat a "great" side through one off great performances from star players than through any concentrated team efforts... Say, the Aussie side of the noughties.. I know Ashes 2005 and how it was an all-round effort but the conditions favored them then. If you look at the wins of India against Australia in the same period, you will see what I mean...

That's a reflection of how poor India's bowling attack was though.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, but it is easier for a team to all contribute than one superhuman effort. Our attack doesn't get a lot of 5fers but have a tendency to all click together at one time or another, Lord's & Edgbaston in the 09 Ashes, Durban 09, Melbourne 10, the whole Pakistan series. And then you will occasionally, like in any team, get a magic spell, like Broad's at The Oval 09.

And if you want superhuman, well I don't know if you've been living under a rock but Alastair Cook just went to Australia and averaged six thousand.

Well, I am not sure where I said anything about current English side. My very first post on this topic to Z was that I was talking generally... Not really about England side of today, who, I believe are a very good side.. And I don't think India are a "great" team, at least in the sense that I have been posting... They are just a "good" side, just like England. So you don't really need any one-off great individual performances to beat them at home... But if we are talking about a truly "great" side, I think you are more likely to win through one off great performances by individuals than any big team effort, simply because the likelihood of one guy firing against a great side is higher than 2 or more firing in the same match..

 

[Furball]

Well, I am not sure where I said anything about current English side. My very first post on this topic to Z was that I was talking generally... Not really about England side of today, who, I believe are a very good side.. And I don't think India are a "great" team, at least in the sense that I have been posting... They are just a "good" side, just like England. So you don't really need any one-off great individual performances to beat them at home... But if we are talking about a truly "great" side, I think you are more likely to win through one off great performances by individuals than any big team effort, simply because the likelihood of one guy firing against a great side is higher than 2 or more firing in the same match..

That's true of India, whose bowling attack outside of India has been crap. That's not true of other nations.

 

[honestbharani]

Ah..we win The Ashes in 05 because conditions favoured us....but the India wins against Australia in that period (2001, wasn't it?!!) are how it should be done..right...lol

I was talking about beating Australia in Adelaide and going toe to toe with them in the other games but fine, go ahead and miss the point. BTW, I still think the Ashes 2005 had a great individual performance in Freddie Flintoff.. Why, you, of all people, would miss that?

 

[GIMH]

Well, I am not sure where I said anything about current English side. My very first post on this topic to Z was that I was talking generally... Not really about England side of today, who, I believe are a very good side.. And I don't think India are a "great" team, at least in the sense that I have been posting... They are just a "good" side, just like England. So you don't really need any one-off great individual performances to beat them at home... But if we are talking about a truly "great" side, I think you are more likely to win through one off great performances by individuals than any big team effort, simply because the likelihood of one guy firing against a great side is higher than 2 or more firing in the same match..

In your post to z, you just said that one guy having a superhuman performance is more likely than a team having contributions from multiple guys...I used England as an example to show how we generally do the latter rather than the former.

 

[honestbharani]

That's a reflection of how poor India's bowling attack was though.

possibly.. AS I said, my main point is that, against a great side the likelihood of one guy having a great performance is higher than 2 or more having a "very good" performance. At least IMO.. That is my point. It is not realy specific about India or England of today at all...

 

[honestbharani]

In your post to z, you just said that one guy having a superhuman performance is more likely than a team having contributions from multiple guys...I used England as an example to show how we generally do the latter rather than the former.

I am pretty sure I mentioned beating a "great" side.. So England, outside of Ashes 2005 (which again was an epic series for Flintoff), I don't think contribute a great example...

 

[Furball]

I was talking about beating Australia in Adelaide and going toe to toe with them in the other games but fine, go ahead and miss the point. BTW, I still think the Ashes 2005 had a great individual performance in Freddie Flintoff.. Why, you, of all people, would miss that?

He wasn't superhuman in the way Botham was in 1981. Flintoff was consistently good, backed up by the rest of the team either in the field or with the bat.

 

[honestbharani]

Except England's attack in 2005 followed the same MO as the current lot. All 4 pacers were a constant threat, rather than just rely on one player to make a superhuman contribution. All the batsmen chipped in at various points during the series as well (with the exception of Bell.)

So once again, you fail, lulz.

jeez.. your life really depends on the internet, doesn't it?


And no, England did not have a great performance from Flintoff in 2005, did they?

 

[Furball]

jeez.. your life really depends on the internet, doesn't it?


And no, England did not have a great performance from Flintoff in 2005, did they?

Haha, I couldn't give a **** about the internet.

Pietersen, Jones and Trescothick all had good to great performances in 2005 as well, we weren't a one man band in that series.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Flintoff - no five wicket hauls for the series, was there? One at best.

 

[honestbharani]

He wasn't superhuman in the way Botham was in 1981. Flintoff was consistently good, backed up by the rest of the team either in the field or with the bat.

You call it consistently good. I call it great. And I think his performances egged on his team mates as much as anything else, to perform better than they usually might (I suspect it is true, given how they turned out since)...

 

[honestbharani]

Flintoff - no five wicket hauls for the series, was there? One at best.

I think he stood out in the series and he got wickets at the most crucial times and runs too... I am pretty sure it classifies as a "great" performance.