*Official* - Road to India in England 2011

[vic_orthdox]

Threads merged, ftr.

 

[Bun]

And if Billy Bowden wasn't such a blind ****, or Smith had hit, would have been drawn at a minimum. Going on about a whitewash makes you look a bit one-eyed to say the least.

No comments. (Ifs and buts are the last refuge of one can't swallow the raw results)

 

[Spark]

Going about the raw results without any context are the last refuge of the one-eyed who refuse to see any weaknesses in one's side.

 

[Daemon]

No comments.



(Ifs and buts are the last refuge of one can't swallow the raw results)

 

[Teja.]

And if Billy Bowden wasn't such a blind ****, or Smith had hit, would have been drawn at a minimum..

Er what? I realize and empathize with your frustration in the context of this debate but it's equally one-eyed to use one example of an unfair decision against a tail-ender without acknowledging that our 50-averaging opener was unfairly given out.

 

[Spark]

Er what? I realize and empathize with your frustration in the context of this debate but it's equally one-eyed to use one example of an unfair decision against a tail-ender without acknowledging that our 50-averaging opener was unfairly given out.

Yeah true, but the point was the whole parrotting whitewash thing masks the fact that we came bloody close to drawing the series.

Which would kind of put pay to the whole "unbeatable" argument.

 

[Bun]

Yeah true, but the point was the whole parrotting whitewash thing masks the fact that we came bloody close to drawing the series.

Which would kind of put pay to the whole "unbeatable" argument.

Fact remains it was a 2-0 whitewash in a 2 test series.

I didn't qualify that, and there is no requirement to do so.

A win, whether by 2 or 200 runs, is the same from result viewpoint.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah, we were supposed to dominate an allegedly weak batting line up, and dominate with our invincible batting at home going by what I interpret from Bun's posts, but the fact that the series was so closely fought means we clearly didn't.

 

[Bun]

Yeah true, but the point was the whole parrotting whitewash thing masks the fact that we came bloody close to drawing the series.

Which would kind of put pay to the whole "unbeatable" argument.

Spark, just to put it in context, Australia came within 1 run of being quashed out of the WC in 1999 and very nearly lost it in the WC 03 against England, in what I think was a must win match.

But do anyone really don't think they weren't dominant in those WCs? Or qualify those WC wins?

 

[Howe_zat]

Fact remains it was a 2-0 whitewash in a 2 test series.

I didn't qualify that, and there is no requirement to do so.

A win, whether by 2 or 200 runs, is the same from result viewpoint.

Except you're trying to use it as an example of dominance, in order to predict future results. The margin of victory is massively relevant.

 

[Bun]

Yeah, we were supposed to dominate an allegedly weak batting line up, and dominate with our invincible batting at home going by what I interpret from Bun's posts, but the fact that the series was so closely fought means we clearly didn't.

It was just ONE test match. And yet we managed to win it. How dare a team cannot have a close match. jeez, some dire arguments thrown out here.

 

[Spark]

Spark, just to put it in context, Australia came within 1 run of being quashed out of the WC in 1999 and very nearly lost it in the WC 03 against England, in what I think was a must win match.

But do anyone really don't think they weren't dominant in those WCs? Or qualify those WC wins?

I would say whoever says we dominated the 99 WC is a fool.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah true, but the point was the whole parrotting whitewash thing masks the fact that we came bloody close to drawing the series.

Which would kind of put pay to the whole "unbeatable" argument.

Yeah, agree with the rest of your argument, just had to make that minor point of order.

In any case, The usage of the term 'whitewash' which apart from it's technical meaning has grown to be associated with completely lop-sided games, is extremely misleading when referring to a 2-match series as the probability of such a series leading to a 2-0 result between evenly matched teams is reasonably high.

 

[Daemon]

Fact remains it was a 2-0 whitewash in a 2 test series.

I didn't qualify that, and there is no requirement to do so.

A win, whether by 2 or 200 runs, is the same from result viewpoint.

But we aren't looking at it from a result viewpoint, we're trying to compare performances of players and teams against each other, something which 2-0 does not reflect. And if you want to take this from a 'result viewpoint, then what does a 3-1 win away tell you?

 

[Bun]

Except you're trying to use it as an example of dominance, in order to predict future results. The margin of victory is massively relevant.

No, while being dominant increases your chances of winning series, it isn't the only criteria to make you win em. See Ashes 2009 for example. Australia iirc dominated Eng in the batting charts, but didn't make it.

The difference with this indian team is, they can be dominant, AND they can win it when they aren't.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, agree with the rest of your argument, just had to make that minor point of order.

In any case, The usage of the term 'whitewash' which apart from it's technical meaning has grown to be associated with completely lop-sided games, is extremely misleading when referring to a 2-match series as the probability of such a series leading to a 2-0 result between evenly matched teams is reasonably high.

Yeah, agreed.

 

[Spark]

No, while being dominant increases your chances of winning series, it isn't the only criteria to make you win em. See Ashes 2009 for example. Australia iirc dominated Eng in the batting charts, but didn't make it.

The difference with this indian team is, they can be dominant, AND they can win it when they aren't.

We got rolled in the Tests where England beat us. That series is statistically odd in that each team took it in turn to **** all over the other. England did it more often. (in fact that's a fascinating trend that there hasn't been a single close Ashes Test since 05. Since then it's been one team rolling the other in succession)

 

[Bun]

Yeah, agree with the rest of your argument, just had to make that minor point of order.

In any case, The usage of the term 'whitewash' which apart from it's technical meaning has grown to be associated with completely lop-sided games, is extremely misleading when referring to a 2-match series as the probability of such a series leading to a 2-0 result between evenly matched teams is reasonably high.

By any yardstick, that series wasn't evenly matched. the first test was yes, but India showed who's the boss in the second.

 

[Daemon]

It was just ONE test match. And yet we managed to win it. How dare a team cannot have a close match. jeez, some dire arguments thrown out here.

The fact that there was a close match shows we did not dominate them when you clearly suggested we did.

EDIT: Going to eat. Hope to see some reply to my 'dire argument' on the previous page when I get back.

 

[vcs]

Bun, just how many teams has this Indian team "dominated" away from home? Just to clarify, I have the greatest admiration for their knack of pulling out results in adverse circumstances, but they haven't "dominated" an series outside the subcontinent, like say, England in the recent Ashes, in my lifetime. In recent tours, it's India who have been dominated on the stat-sheets and came away with a share of the spoils, but they certainly haven't dominated.