Are England The Real Deal?

[GotSpin]

Really. Really? now? You are better than that. In 2001, There were not blatant decisions like the one that happened in Sydney.

In 2001, Two instances that come to my mind are Ponting getting Dravid LBW in Kolkata and not given out. But by that time India had already escaped. The second one was when umpire Bansal in a fit gives a few LBW toward the end of the innings. But they were marginal at best. Not blatant like the ones in Sydney

1) Ponting Caught behind
2) Symmo caught behind, which could be heard all over the place
3) Symmo Stumped
4) Dravid given out when not out
5) Ganguly's dismissal

So Imagine that against 2001.

My point being that bad decisions have happened every series. Who knows how they may have effected a match or series. You can't justify India's away record in Australia on the basis of Bucknors bad umpiring, whether they were blatant mistakes or not is utterly irrelevant.

Don't even get me started on the joke that was Bhajis hattrick btw

 

[Bun]

The subforum is under discussion, we've seen everyone's views and we'll make sure we make a considered decision.

I, for one, can't imagine how we'll cope without a whole forum full of threads like this one.

that's good news. thanks.

 

[Howe_zat]

Ok "owning" was a little too high. But India have been as equal as England when it comes to playing Australia. Regarding not winning away, we should have won in 2008. Bucknor was the umpire. I rest my case.

Losing a series partially thanks to poor umpiring is now equal to three innings victories.

Good to know.

 

[Bun]

Losing a series partially thanks to poor umpiring is now equal to three innings victories.

Good to know.

losing 5-0 is certainly worse than losing 2-1



(just keeping up the trend in last few pages )

 

[Pup Clarke]

He produces banana shaped swing and the great pronounced movement happens late, which makes it far more difficult for the batsman.

And that's not Anderson how?

 

[gvenkat]

Losing a series partially thanks to poor umpiring is now equal to three innings victories.

Good to know.

Not saying that. England have been dismal except for the last series in Australia. India on the other hand have held their own from the start of this decade in Australia.

 

[marc71178]

I, for one, can't imagine how we'll cope without a whole forum full of threads like this one.

The tragic thing is that it's been a hijacking of a thread that was discussing a very good piece of writing by a guest writer for the site.

 

[GotSpin]

Not saying that. England have been dismal except for the last series in Australia. India on the other hand have held their own from the start of this decade in Australia.

Good to see you changing your tune

 

[Jacknife]

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.

This is the post I made and note, that I said virtually nobody, which obviously was said with SA in mind and again where in my posts have I been questioning people about SA's win in Aus. It seems your just making stuff up now.

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

 

[Howe_zat]

and the English on a top order that can only play three different strokes and as entertaining as reading SS post in the CW science thread

 

[gvenkat]

Good to see you changing your tune

No just stating the facts.

 

[marc71178]

Since the start of this decade England have dominated Australia in Australia.

Domination >>>>>>>>>> "holding their own"

 

[Shri]

You would think they took apart Warne/McGrath/Gillespie etc from reading this thread. Lets face it, Australia has declined just when England has risen to the top.

/grabs coat and leaves

 

[BoyBrumby]

So i don't see the big fuss about saying why India is a favorite here. If that is arrogance i wonder what about everyone rubbishing India's #1 ranking here, That is not arrogance?

India at this moment are experienced more than England to hold the favorites tag. That is my opinion though. In all reality if India unleash either of Mishra or Ashwin, England would find it tricky. But we know that won't happen because that over-rated **** Bhajji will play.

See, the problem with this is that India demonstrably aren't favourites.

You might think they will win and there are some good reasons why they might, but England are the team favoured to the series.

 

[honestbharani]

See, the problem with this is that India demonstrably aren't favourites.

You might think they will win and there are some good reasons why they might, but England are the team favoured to the series.

yeah.. and lets face it, it is because the teams are closer to each other than the fanboys on both sides of the fence would have us believe... Weren't Aus the favorites for the Ashes down under before it started?

 

[Bun]

boybrumby, betting is banned in india, fairly sure if it wasn't, we'd have those odds tweaked fairly around india's way.

 

[BoyBrumby]

yeah.. and lets face it, it is because the teams are closer to each other than the fanboys on both sides of the fence would have us believe... Weren't Aus the favorites for the Ashes down under before it started?

They were, yes.

I thought they'd sneak it too, fwiw. I think a lot of revisionism has gone after the Ashes. Yes, Oz were on the down slope, but they still looked a strong test outfit beforehand.

 

[PhoenixFire]

yeah.. and lets face it, it is because the teams are closer to each other than the fanboys on both sides of the fence would have us believe... Weren't Aus the favorites for the Ashes down under before it started?

That's kinf of irrelvant to the point BB was making though. He was only asserting that what gvenkat wasn't true.

 

[honestbharani]

That's kinf of irrelvant to the point BB was making though. He was only asserting that what gvenkat wasn't true.

well.. what I meant was that neither team is some world beater suddenly.. England doing so well was a surprise, which shows not many think they are some awesome side that have dropped down from heaven and neither is India.. I mean, we haven't won a bloody series in Aus or SA yet.. So these are just 2 good teams and since it is home turf for England, they should reasonably be considered favorites. That is all I have to say, tbh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

boybrumby, betting is banned in india, fairly sure if it wasn't, we'd have those odds tweaked fairly around india's way.

I doubt it. Bookies aren't charities. Looking at some Australian betting sites like Sportingbet or Sportsbet and England are shorter priced to beat Sri Lanka than odds available up here.

Sort of negates the patriotic punt theory.