*Official* First Test at Lord's

[Spark]

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

I would have got Broad on. Push him back with the short one but your main plan should be the same as always - attack the stumps, look for the bowled, LBW and caught behind.

 

[silentstriker]

Don't see any hope of India making it past tea to be honest. Too bad.

 

[Prince EWS]

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?

I'm weird in that I'm probably the strongest (or second strongest when Richard is posting) advocate of judging players on results, and yet when I judge teams I'm far more open to just looking at the personnel. I guess it's because teams can change completely and the theoretical example of eleven players retiring at once and that country's Second XI team being 'the best in the world' until they lost enough games for the results to conclusively show they weren't is enough for me to dismiss the whole thing as pretty pointless.

 

[Themer]

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.

If England were to win this series by two tests will the rankings lie then?

 

[Tom Halsey]

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?

Because sides change too much. The England side now is almost totally unrecognisable from the side that last played in India for example, even if many of the players are the same.

There is no point of looking good on paper if it doesn't generate wins whatsoever. That’s not what I’m arguing, though I may have worded it badly. What I’m trying to say is that the best 11 players in the world will generate results; that’s why they’re the best 11 players in the world. They might not have been the best 11 players in the world three years ago or more though, hence why their results three years ago aren’t as good as they would have been had they been as good then as they are now.

 

[Spark]

I'm weird in that I'm probably the strongest (or second strongest when Richard is posting) advocate of judging players on results, and yet when I judge teams I'm far more open to just looking at the personnel. I guess it's because teams can change completely and the theoretical example of eleven players retiring at once and that country's Second XI team being 'the best in the world' until they lost enough games for the results to conclusively show they weren't is enough for me to dismiss the whole thing as pretty pointless.

That's a subtly different question though.

"Who is best Test nation in the world?" - that to me is purely results based.
"Who has the strongest playing XI in the world" - well, that's clearly a mixture of both.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm weird in that I'm probably the strongest (or second strongest when Richard is posting) advocate of judging players on results, and yet when I judge teams I'm far more open to just looking at the personnel. I guess it's because teams can change completely and the theoretical example of eleven players retiring at once and that country's Second XI team being 'the best in the world' until they lost enough games for the results to conclusively show they weren't is enough for me to dismiss the whole thing as pretty pointless.

Yeah this is what I'm trying to say put in a much better way.

 

[silentstriker]

Whether India can remain #1 will be dependent primarily on Zaheer Khan. Really after India lose this, they have to win one and draw one (best chance from India's PoV) to not lose the ranking, or hope for three draws (unlikely). I'm fairly confident that there will be at least one draw, possibly two, but the win will depend on Zaheer's fitness.

 

[oitoitoi]

If England were to win this series by two tests will the rankings lie then?

No they will be the number 1 side and I'll say well played. Don't think that will happen mind. Still wouldn't think you'd come close to beating us at home.

 

[Athlai]

If we're talking so much rubbish I may as well turn it onto a nicer note.

Watching the Simpson's during the lunch break. 'Homer's Phobia' where Homer reveals he is a homophobe. ZAP! ZAP!

 

[Prince EWS]

That's a subtly different question though.

"Who is best Test nation in the world?" - that to me is purely results based.
"Who has the strongest playing XI in the world" - well, that's clearly a mixture of both.

Yeah, I see it like that with players too.

"Who is the better batsman" to me is something I'd just purely base on past batting results but if you asked me who I thought was going to have a better series or perform better over the next 6 months/1 year/5 years/career etc (anything that involves a prediction) I'd consider a mixture of results, technique, temperament, age etc - which is what most people seem to do with the original question. I did a bit of self-analysis on it throughout my posts in the Raina v Morgan thread.

If you asked me who the better team was though I'd just consider a mixture of both results and personnel straight away. Which makes no real sense, but that's how my head works.

 

[Tom Halsey]

That's a subtly different question though.

"Who is best Test nation in the world?" - that to me is purely results based.
"Who has the strongest playing XI in the world" - well, that's clearly a mixture of both.

Then we're talking at cross purposes. To me those two questions are the same. The best side is the side with the best players (and the best players are by definition the ones likeliest to produce the best results).

Australia after Gilchrist’s retirement in 2008 would have been the “best Test nation in the world” under this definition but there is no way I would have said that they were at the time, because they just weren’t a very good side.

 

[Cevno]

Riled up are we boys?

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

cyainabit

And Presumably you will be out picking up something and missed play if England don't win the series? Right?

 

[Athlai]

You know me Marge, I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals flaming.

 

[biased indian]

Then we're talking at cross purposes. To me those two questions are the same. The best side is the side with the best players (and the best players are by definition the ones likeliest to produce the best results).

Australia after Gilchrist’s retirement in 2008 would have been the “best Test nation in the world” under this definition but there is no way I would have said that they were at the time, because they just weren’t a very good side.

so who was the best team in the world then after his retirement ? so from being team with 11 best players in the world they suddenly became the second best team because they lost just one guy?

Agree with the theoretical example Pwes put forward but don't think that happened any time in the history of cricket rt or did during the parker era?.. don't know about any other team sports ..may be the Man u after that air plane accident would be a example

 

[Howe_zat]

Can anyone get records on Swann vs Gambhir? Got him out in his first Test over, got him in the World Cup and got him today. Anyone think of any more?

On the match, I reckon if we get Tendulkar and one more before tea we've got this. New ball soon after tea too. Of course, Tendulkar and Raina were always the ones to fear, apart from the overnight batsmen - Raina's made himself into something of a fighter.

Don't see any hope of India making it past tea to be honest. Too bad.

Stop that, now.

 

[GIMH]

And Presumably you will be out picking up something and missed play if England don't win the series? Right?

Haha, I wrote that post before bed and thought it might have sounded suss.

But EWS should be able to confirm that I was pestering him to see what was going on when I was on the bus.

I missed Cook's wicket, came downstairs after taking a **** and he was gone.
Saw KP get out just as I was leaving the house.
Missed Bell & trott getting out
Got back and saw Morgan get out just as I had to go for my driving lesson
Got back and we were cruising

I suspect you are pulling my leg anyway but I honestly didn't see much of Sharma's good spell. The longest period I watched for in one go yesterday was Prior going from about 75 to 100 and then our bowling.

As I say, Prince EWS can verify this.

 

[biased indian]

Stop that, now.

You made dravid play that short and what us to stop now ???

 

[Tom Halsey]

so who was the best team in the world then after his retirement ? so from being team with 11 best players in the world they suddenly became the second best team because they lost just one guy?

Agree with the theoretical example Pwes put forward but don't think that happened any time in the history of cricket rt or did during the parker era?.. don't know about any other team sports ..may be the Man u after that air plane accident would be a example

You've misunderstood me. I wasn't saying it was thanks to his retirement, I was just using his retirement as a marker.

It has happened with Australia (albeit in a less extreme way) in recent history. In 08 their results would have been better than any other side. They were actually probably about the fifth or sixth best side in the world.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can anyone get records on Swann vs Gambhir? Got him out in his first Test over, got him in the World Cup and got him today. Anyone think of any more?

On the match, I reckon if we get Tendulkar and one more before tea we've got this. New ball soon after tea too. Of course, Tendulkar and Raina were always the ones to fear, apart from the overnight batsmen - Raina's made himself into something of a fighter.



Stop that, now.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...late=results;type=batting;view=dismissal_list