Are England The Real Deal?

[Bun]

Selective quoting for the win. Let's just ignore the vast amount of post he's made which rubbish everything England have done in the past 2 years.

onus on u to prove.

also it's irritating to see generalisations in terms of nationality. the other day nnanden was referring to 'indians who are mocking at rohit' as muppets. I am unsure as to why he thought only indians do that

 

[Howe_zat]

jacknife,

while what england did to the aussies was mighty impressive, it is completely untrue to say that nobody was talking of their being a side not only on the wane but very much having waned. india did beat them 2-0 in a two test series. that is the most that any team can do in a two test series after all!

Yes, very true. Australia were widely recognised as being on the downhill since around 2008. However, they were still considered a good side and among the best until England beat them so badly. Take a look at the "Road to the 2010-11 Ashes" thread if you don't believe me.

 

[Bun]

What's with the 'Just becuase it's the ashes does not mean anything. Bollocks or not that is what it is', it means something because virtually, nobody goes to Australia and wins, let alone what England did to them. Who a couple months before said 'waning said', India struggled to beat in their own back yard, if they were so waning why didn't India give them a arseholing then .There's nothing like talking down England's achievements is there.

hold on, india has a record of 4-0 in the last 6 home tests they played against aus. not sure what's this struggling u r meaning.

and fyi, SA managed a series win in aus before england did.

 

[Teja.]

Struggling to win? Test cricket does not work that way. Scoreline was 2-0, if I recall correctly.

Engalnd's victory was obv. more impressive et cetera.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, none of it has any relevance to what will happen in the coming series, really. But then I guess we might as well close this thread and shut down the forum if we are only talking of relevant things.

 

[hang on]

i certainly believe u, howzat. it is about the waning part of things that my comment was aimed at. yes, australia were considered a good team and no pushovers by any means.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I can't believe people are talking down beating Australia 3-1, with 3 innings victories, in Australia. Kind of defies belief.

 

[hang on]

there seem to be hyperbolic assertions from both sides in this debate, phoenix.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Won't disagree with that.

 

[Teja.]

I can't believe people are talking down beating Australia 3-1, with 3 innings victories, in Australia. Kind of defies belief.

Haha, just realized the lower part of my previous post might come off as sarcastic. Certainly did not intend to.

 

[Jacknife]

jacknife,

while what england did to the aussies was mighty impressive, it is completely untrue to say that nobody was talking of their being a side not only on the wane but very much having waned. india did beat them 2-0 in a two test series. that is the most that any team can do in a two test series after all!

I neither said that Aus weren't on the wane, so where has that come from, but to make out like, like you've just said, they are a team that has very much waned, isn't true. Obviously there not the ATG team they were, but this is the same team that went to SA and won and had been a consistent side leading into the tests with India. There they lost out in a match that could have gone either way and India got the better of them in the 2nd.
Someone said 'Just becuase it's the ashes does not mean anything. Bollocks or not that is what it is,' and the fact is until England royally turned them over, they weren't been made out to be a crap side at all, in fact going in to the Ashes, a lot of people thought Aus would win, so a lot of people's opinions have changes because of what happened in the Ashes.

 

[hang on]

I neither said that Aus weren't on the wane, so where has that come from, but to make out like, like you've just said, they are a team that has very much waned, isn't true. Obviously there not the ATG team they were, but this is the same team that went to SA and won and had been a consistent side leading into the tests with India. There they lost out in a match that could have gone either way and India got the better of them in the 2nd.
Someone said 'Just becuase it's the ashes does not mean anything. Bollocks or not that is what it is,' and the fact is until England royally turned them over, they weren't been made out to be a crap side at all, in fact going in to the Ashes, a lot of people thought Aus would win, so a lot of people's opinions have changes because of what happened in the Ashes.

it certainly seemed like that is what u said ie that there was no talk of their being on the wane. also, there was a lot of talk of their being a team on the wane in the media at various points prior to the series. reached a crescendo when they were get marmalised by pakistan in the second summer test against them, if i remember correctly. but there was talk long before the series.

 

[Jacknife]

hold on, india has a record of 4-0 in the last 6 home tests they played against aus. not sure what's this struggling u r meaning.

and fyi, SA managed a series win in aus before england did.

You what? I'm talking about the test series that took place before the Ashes, where the first test could have gone either way. The point is you lot make out, what England did to Aus in Aus, was because they weren't much cop, If they were so bad, why didn't the No 1 team in their own back yard, run riot over them then.
What you telling me about SA for?

 

[Jacknife]

it certainly seemed like that is what u said ie that there was no talk of their being on the wane. also, there was a lot of talk of their being a team on the wane in the media at various points prior to the series. reached a crescendo when they were get marmalised by pakistan in the second summer test against them, if i remember correctly. but there was talk long before the series.

Where? and has much as it hurts to stick up for the Ozzies, they didn't get 'marmalised by pakistan', Pakistan won by 3 wickets and it was a close game at the end, with 2 bowlers at the crease.

 

[hang on]

where? in your post. u do recollect what u wrote, right? seems like u don't because u are also questioning people who point out that it is again patently incorrect that nobody goes to oz and wins......the saffers did so. against a stronger team.

this is going to end in tears and so i'm happy to say that i obviously didn't understand what u wrote. but it seems that a few others haven't either.

 

[Bun]

You what? I'm talking about the test series that took place before the Ashes, where the first test could have gone either way. The point is you lot make out, what England did to Aus in Aus, was because they weren't much cop, If they were so bad, why didn't the No 1 team in their own back yard, run riot over them then.
What you telling me about SA for?

facepalm.jpg

never knew we had to do better than 2-0 in a two test series to be considered as good enough.

and lol, yes we were close to losing the first test, but ultimately we won it, and we rolled em over in the 2nd. coupled with over performances in 08, it indicates nothing but dominance.

your assertion is as laughable as someone suggesting england did not dominate aus in the last ashes because they got hammered at perth.

 

[Howe_zat]

it means something because virtually, nobody goes to Australia and wins, let alone what England did to them.

Is what he said ftr.

 

[Bun]

What's with the 'Just becuase it's the ashes does not mean anything. Bollocks or not that is what it is', it means something because virtually, nobody goes to Australia and wins, let alone what England did to them. Who a couple months before said 'waning said', India struggled to beat in their own back yard, if they were so waning why didn't India give them a arseholing then .There's nothing like talking down England's achievements is there.

jackknife, attn drawn to the boldened section in ur quote. SA iirc won the first 2 tests and made the last a dead rubber.

 

[GotSpin]

lol at writing Englands victory down here off when India have never done it.

 

[vcs]

You what? I'm talking about the test series that took place before the Ashes, where the first test could have gone either way. The point is you lot make out, what England did to Aus in Aus, was because they weren't much cop, If they were so bad, why didn't the No 1 team in their own back yard, run riot over them then.
What you telling me about SA for?

Yeah well, the matches were close but the facts are as he has said. It's possible that Australia played better against India than they did against England. It's possible that they were demoralized by losing those close games to India despite playing well, and also not being able to drive home the first innings lead they gained in Brisbane, and mentally let it slip from there. You can explain it in many ways and not all of them necessarily involve England being a great all-conquering side as an explanation for why their victories were so emphatic.

Basically, it all has very little relevance for the upcoming series, anyway.