*Official* First Test at Lord's

[Himannv]

Tendulkar and Raina too good against spin. Replace Swann with Tremlett perhaps.

 

[superkingdave]

Tendulkar and Raina too good against spin. Replace Swann with Tremlett perhaps.

Presumably the last over before lunch anyway, probably Broad and Tremlett after the break for a bi

 

[weldone]

Raina versus Omlette

Come on gun, fight! Show your character!

 

[GIMH]

One more from these last few balls would be so epic

 

[oitoitoi]

This is the thing English fans never seem to get, winning at home is expected. Fair play you beat the aussies in their backyard, Xavier Doherty and all. For the moment at least, the rankings don't lie (paraphrasing Swann there I think).

 

[biased indian]

The past decade doesn't tell you who the best team now is. Otherwise Australia would be comfortably top.

so only one series decide whose the best team ... you are in a position to claim England is good now is because of the fact that hey have been very good for the last 5-6 years .

 

[Spark]

I realise Raina has a weakness to the short stuff but surely that just makes the full stuff even more dangerous too...

 

[Himannv]

Presumably the last over before lunch anyway, probably Broad and Tremlett after the break for a bi

Ah they gave him the last one instead of Anderson. Yep Broad and Tremlett after lunch would probably be best.

 

[CricAddict]

58% of the fans still believe India will cling on to a draw, as per a vote in cricinfo.
Love the confidence of the Indian fans nowadays. Have changed a lot from the whinging of Indian fans earlier about how the team crumbled under pressure easily.

 

[biased indian]

lunch ?

 

[weldone]

Believe it or not, wins in other places are also relevant to how good a team is

Did we forget congratulating you for becoming no. 3?

If we did, then here it is.

Well played.

 

[Cevno]

I must have missed the memo that said you had to win in India to be the number one side.

And i missed the memo where one test makes someone the no.1 team.

 

[oitoitoi]

And i missed the memo where one test makes someone the no.1 team.

The double standards are astonishing.

 

[GIMH]

This is the thing English fans never seem to get, winning at home is expected. Fair play you beat the aussies in their backyard, Xavier Doherty and all. For the moment at least, the rankings don't lie (paraphrasing Swann there I think).

Did we forget congratulating you for becoming no. 3?

If we did, then here it is.

Well played.

And i missed the memo where one test makes someone the no.1 team.

The double standards are astonishing.

Riled up are we boys?

Hey, we might not even win this yet. But rest assured, we are a better side.

cyainabit

 

[Spark]

Yeah GIMH this Test doesn't make you #1, sorry

 

[Tom Halsey]

This is the thing English fans never seem to get, winning at home is expected. Fair play you beat the aussies in their backyard, Xavier Doherty and all. For the moment at least, the rankings don't lie (paraphrasing Swann there I think).

Who cares about results in the last decade, or not having beaten India in India? We're discussing who the best side in the world is, not who the side with the best results in the world is. Sides change, players improve or get worse. There's a pretty strong correlation between results and how good a team is, but there's too many other factors to make it the be all and end all, and the fact that England haven't beaten India in India in 25 years or whatever the stat was for instance, is almost totally irrelevant.

The best side in the world is the side with the best 11 players at the moment, and I'm reasonably confident that's England.

EDIT: And I would have said that for about the last year ftr, certainly since before the Ashes, nothing to do with one Test.

 

[Spark]

Who cares about results in the last decade, or not having beaten India in India? We're discussing who the best side in the world is, not who the side with the best results in the world is. Sides change, players improve or get worse. There's a pretty strong correlation between results and how good a team is, but there's too many other factors to make it the be all and end all, and the fact that England haven't beaten India in India in 25 years or whatever the stat was for instance, is almost totally irrelevant.

The best side in the world is the side with the best 11 players at the moment, and I'm reasonably confident that's England.

Nah IMO results are the only thing that matters in judging how good a team is. What's the point of looking good on paper if it doesn't translate to wins?

 

[Himannv]

I realise Raina has a weakness to the short stuff but surely that just makes the full stuff even more dangerous too...

Mix them up and try to get him to fend at one?

 

[Daemon]

Who cares about results in the last decade, or not having beaten India in India? We're discussing who the best side in the world is, not who the side with the best results in the world is. Sides change, players improve or get worse. There's a pretty strong correlation between results and how good a team is, but there's too many other factors to make it the be all and end all, and the fact that England haven't beaten India in India in 25 years or whatever the stat was for instance, is almost totally irrelevant.

The best side in the world is the side with the best 11 players at the moment, and I'm reasonably confident that's England.

EDIT: And I would have said that for about the last year ftr, certainly since before the Ashes, nothing to do with one Test.

err ok.

I'm reasonably confident it's India.

 

[oitoitoi]

Nah IMO results are the only thing that matters in judging how good a team is. What's the point of looking good on paper if it doesn't translate to wins?

Indeed, the Saffers could well have said that for part of the 90's, but without the results it meant nothing, the rankings do not lie.