England XI vs India XI (since 1970)

[PlayerComparisons]

It makes me question the standard of cricket pre 70 when England were producing greats then but then suddenly stopped producing them since

 

[Johan]

you know, was thinking, Pakistan didn't produce a single great in 50s-60s-early 70s but post 75 they had a bunch of greats, it makes me question the standard of cricket from 1975 to 2010

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Even in the 60s England didn’t debut any undisputed ATG batsmen or bowlers. You have to go all the way back to the 50s really.

 

[Johan]

We frequently bring up various restrictions on comparing players. How many comparisons you have seen of modern openers? I can attest to have more than 5 atleast. Judging two teams in the proper modern eras is hardly some "heavy, nit picky" restriction. If one team is doing significantly worse, it's totally on them really.

These things are fun because there is an actual scope of discussion, say Boycott vs Greenidge or Sehwag vs Cook, these debates are actually entertaining to discuss. When you do something like England vs SA and specifically lock away the eras that would make the conversation competitive you're conceptually limiting the discussion to an obvious and unquestionable outcome with no scope of discussion when there could've been quality discussion if you simply didn't put meaningless and arbitrary restrictions, and hence that is annoying to people because clearly unlike "Rank modern openers" the threads are less about discussion and debates and more about furthering an agenda. Doesn't help that PC isn't exactly subtle about having a very... maybe I shouldn't that world agenda a lot of the times.

That's what annoys people, you're welcome to mistake that however you want but that's the alternate perspective on this.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

These things are fun because there is an actual scope of discussion, say Boycott vs Greenidge or Sehwag vs Cook, these debates are actually entertaining to discuss. When you do something like England vs SA and specifically lock away the eras that would make the conversation competitive you're conceptually limiting the discussion to an obvious and unquestionable outcome with no scope of discussion when there could've been quality discussion, and hence that is annoying to people because clearly unlike "Rank modern openers" the threads are less about discussion and interaction and more about furthering an agenda.

That's what annoys people, you're welcome to mistake that however you want but that's the alternate perspective on this.

You’re taking this subforum way too seriously. Just ignore the thread if it’s so annoying. It’s not that hard lol.

 

[Johan]

You’re taking this subforum way too seriously. Just ignore the thread if it’s so annoying. It’s not that hard lol.

did just that since yesterday, why are you being pressed by me conversing with someone else?

 

[kyear2]

These things are fun because there is an actual scope of discussion, say Boycott vs Greenidge or Sehwag vs Cook, these debates are actually entertaining to discuss. When you do something like England vs SA and specifically lock away the eras that would make the conversation competitive you're conceptually limiting the discussion to an obvious and unquestionable outcome with no scope of discussion when there could've been quality discussion if you simply didn't put meaningless and arbitrary restrictions, and hence that is annoying to people because clearly unlike "Rank modern openers" the threads are less about discussion and debates and more about furthering an agenda. Doesn't help that PC isn't exactly subtle about having a very... maybe I shouldn't that world agenda a lot of the times.

That's what annoys people, you're welcome to mistake that however you want but that's the alternate perspective on this.

Exactly the highlighted bits.

When you manufacture a predetermined outcome to suit your purposes.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Love how pissed some of you weak little bitches are at this innocuous thread. Pathetic.

 

[sayon basak]

You’re taking this subforum way too seriously. Just ignore the thread if it’s so annoying. It’s not that hard lol.

This.

 

[Coronis]

you know, was thinking, Pakistan didn't produce a single great in 50s-60s-early 70s but post 75 they had a bunch of greats, it makes me question the standard of cricket from 1975 to 2010

Hanif Mohammad and Fazal Mahmood both rolling in their graves.

 

[ma1978]

Once the dark nations became good at cricket, England became bad.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hanif Mohammad and Fazal Mahmood both rolling in their graves.

Mushtaq Mohammad (still alive) was more than useful too.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Once the dark nations became good at cricket, England became bad.

Has got to do with the massive shrink in the popularity of the sport within the country.

 

[honestbharani]

India is better.

 

[capt_Luffy]

These things are fun because there is an actual scope of discussion, say Boycott vs Greenidge or Sehwag vs Cook, these debates are actually entertaining to discuss. When you do something like England vs SA and specifically lock away the eras that would make the conversation competitive you're conceptually limiting the discussion to an obvious and unquestionable outcome with no scope of discussion when there could've been quality discussion if you simply didn't put meaningless and arbitrary restrictions, and hence that is annoying to people because clearly unlike "Rank modern openers" the threads are less about discussion and debates and more about furthering an agenda. Doesn't help that PC isn't exactly subtle about having a very... maybe I shouldn't that world agenda a lot of the times.

That's what annoys people, you're welcome to mistake that however you want but that's the alternate perspective on this.

I can understand this perspective somewhat, but I also think some people are getting too heated for no reason. If being honest, comparing the two teams with players they have produced in the competitive Era makes too much sense. It's an interesting comparison, except just that England is severely weaker despite playing in far more matches. Imo, had I been an English fan, I would had taken it as a valid problem and not point to our glory days for better players. If you want to do a pretty 1970 comparison, that actually won't make sense since Indian cricket was in infancy back then and we bare has 3 decades; while England a whole century. Two very dissimilar length of times. But here, both gets equal time. I really think struggling here is on England.

 

[ma1978]

Has got to do with the massive shrink in the popularity of the sport within the country.

nah they’re just not that good at real sports (it’s not like the rise in popularity in football made them good at that).

it’s the English mentality - this is the same country that sold the genius Kevin Pietersen out

 

[peterhrt]

England v India Test results since 1970: England won 33, India won 32, Drawn 34.

England v Pakistan since 1970: England won 22, Pakistan won 22, Drawn 30.

England v South Africa since readmission: England won 20, South Africa won 17, Drawn 17.

 

[Johan]

I can understand this perspective somewhat, but I also think some people are getting too heated for no reason. If being honest, comparing the two teams with players they have produced in the competitive Era makes too much sense. It's an interesting comparison, except just that England is severely weaker despite playing in far more matches. Imo, had I been an English fan, I would had taken it as a valid problem and not point to our glory days for better players. If you want to do a pretty 1970 comparison, that actually won't make sense since Indian cricket was in infancy back then and we bare has 3 decades; while England a whole century. Two very dissimilar length of times. But here, both gets equal time. I really think struggling here is on England.

I mean it's fundamentally a problem, If you ask me my opinion on English cricket from late 80s to like mid 2000s you'll always get criticism from me, but this isn't some divine restricted knowledge that only a few of us have that neeeds some form of viewing, everyone knows this. My point is people don't care about that, the result is artificial and manufactured which goes against the spirit of the threads as the result is already predetermined, really an all time England vs SA thread could've been good! but when you lock it down it no longer is and that is why these threads get ****, nobody thinks England has been good enough in like last 50 years, but instead of banking on that to make threads with a predetermined outcome you can always make threads using the era where the country was actually good to make threads without predetermined outcomes.

that's all, that's the annoying part,England was average or just terrible for like half of the proposed timeframe but the timeframe is there to predetermine the outcome.

 

[ma1978]

England v India Test results since 1970: England won 33, India won 32, Drawn 34.

England v Pakistan since 1970: England won 22, Pakistan won 22, Drawn 30.

England v South Africa since readmission: England won 20, South Africa won 17, Drawn 17.

don’t let actual numbers get in the way of an internet argument!

but trolling aside, I think there is more depth in English cricket (although this has changed with India), and historically Ind, Pak and SA have had to rely more on stars. Thus the discrepancy between outcomes and how an at xi would play

 

[Johan]

don’t let actual numbers get in the way of an internet argument!

Forum in a nutshell bar like 20% of the guys