Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Can you show me 1 post that remotely constitutes a "meltdown"
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Are England really favourites for CT17?
- Thread starter Moonsorrow999
- Start date
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
really? It's not even really an argument. It's just common sense.
Cricket is a game with so many variables, that the better team doesn't always win. Heck even the team that plays better on the day doesn't always win.
Even Aus in 2003 could have easily lost a game or 2 if a few things went differently.
You could be the best team in the world by some margin and you're still not going to win every single game. That's just the game of cricket.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Indeedy.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agree in the main about one bad day etc, but disagree with the sentence in bold.
Athers nailed in my quoted post above. England were the best side in their conditions, but not 'most conditions'.
Moonsorrow999
U19 Debutant
Bayliss at least said one good thing, and that was that where they finish 3rd/4th is probably a true reflection of where they are in the world. Since WC15, they lost to Australia, India and S.A in a series. Beat S.A just before tournament but S.A just treated that as meaningless warm up games clearly. Are England really massively better off? Maybe slightly yes but still have many weaknesses, I guess when they lose they lose horribly, and when they win they crush so it over-rates slightly. But 2 years ago, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, S.A, Australia and NZ were far better teams than they are now in my opinion, so whereas England haven't gotten any worse, I think maybe their batting has gotten slightly better and their bowling slightly worse if anything.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
I don't think South Africa treated them as meaningless warm ups at all. I think after the Asian teams, South Africa takes ODI cricket very very seriously and a bilateral series in England right before a major ICC tournament in England is not a meaningless warm up.
That being said, the question of favourites/or not is an amusing one because you're basically making a prediction and predictions have a 50% chance of going wrong. It should not be taken any more seriously than it deserves - it's a prediction, and most analysts, journalists, and us cricket geeks will make informed predictions, usually based on past results and analysis of their performances and comparisons, but they are still a call. I think it's a bit unfair to wait for a prediction to go wrong and then come back to rub it in.
Ramiz Raja of all people was the only person who jokingly predicted an India-Pakistan final. Are we going to give him credit now for getting it right? The guy who can't even name Pakistani players? Or what if England had made it to the finals but lost to Bangladesh/India? Were we going to say then "oh see England are crap"?
Personally, I rated India and Australia as markedly superior sides to England and I picked them as favourites. I got one wrong there. But it's all about what your reasons are. We can have an informed, cricketing discussion on these reasons.
I think most people including guys like Kohli, Mark Nicholas, Jarrod Kimber who hailed England as the favourites did so based on how England bat more than what they have achieved.
So they saw a devastating batting line up with unbelievable depth, the most powerful lower middle order and they concluded England were the favourites.
For most part they were right. I don't want to be the "I told you so" guy here but the reason I rate India so highly is because despite their numbers being lower than their English counterparts since WC 2015, I just rate their batsmen as better players than English batsman (apart from Root). Ultimately, in a tournament, that makes a difference. It's hard to make a case for Australia now given what happened with their tournament, but Warner is still comfortably better than Hales/Roy combined and Smith on par with Root. But if Australia do go with the likes of Henriques at 4, then they are not going to be up there for too long
If you have a Rohit vs Hales and Hales has the higher SR and more devastating knocks currently, over a period of time, I would still pick Rohit because I am backing a more skilled player here over a player currently playing better.
England have lost to Australia, India and until very recently, South Africa too in bilateral series and that for me would place them below those two teams currently. This is not to say 'oh they are crap" and 'see how those calling them favourites have egg on their face" but just that England need to beat these top sides consistently to be recognized as a truly superior side, something those sides have done for a longer time than England.
And no, 2 years ago, Pakistan were not a better team than they are now. 2 years ago - they lost 0-3 to Bangladesh.
New Zealand - yes
Sri Lanka - same I would say. No real improvement or digression.
That being said, the question of favourites/or not is an amusing one because you're basically making a prediction and predictions have a 50% chance of going wrong. It should not be taken any more seriously than it deserves - it's a prediction, and most analysts, journalists, and us cricket geeks will make informed predictions, usually based on past results and analysis of their performances and comparisons, but they are still a call. I think it's a bit unfair to wait for a prediction to go wrong and then come back to rub it in.
Ramiz Raja of all people was the only person who jokingly predicted an India-Pakistan final. Are we going to give him credit now for getting it right? The guy who can't even name Pakistani players? Or what if England had made it to the finals but lost to Bangladesh/India? Were we going to say then "oh see England are crap"?
Personally, I rated India and Australia as markedly superior sides to England and I picked them as favourites. I got one wrong there. But it's all about what your reasons are. We can have an informed, cricketing discussion on these reasons.
I think most people including guys like Kohli, Mark Nicholas, Jarrod Kimber who hailed England as the favourites did so based on how England bat more than what they have achieved.
So they saw a devastating batting line up with unbelievable depth, the most powerful lower middle order and they concluded England were the favourites.
For most part they were right. I don't want to be the "I told you so" guy here but the reason I rate India so highly is because despite their numbers being lower than their English counterparts since WC 2015, I just rate their batsmen as better players than English batsman (apart from Root). Ultimately, in a tournament, that makes a difference. It's hard to make a case for Australia now given what happened with their tournament, but Warner is still comfortably better than Hales/Roy combined and Smith on par with Root. But if Australia do go with the likes of Henriques at 4, then they are not going to be up there for too long
If you have a Rohit vs Hales and Hales has the higher SR and more devastating knocks currently, over a period of time, I would still pick Rohit because I am backing a more skilled player here over a player currently playing better.
England have lost to Australia, India and until very recently, South Africa too in bilateral series and that for me would place them below those two teams currently. This is not to say 'oh they are crap" and 'see how those calling them favourites have egg on their face" but just that England need to beat these top sides consistently to be recognized as a truly superior side, something those sides have done for a longer time than England.
And no, 2 years ago, Pakistan were not a better team than they are now. 2 years ago - they lost 0-3 to Bangladesh.
New Zealand - yes
Sri Lanka - same I would say. No real improvement or digression.
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I am not sure what all the discussion is about though? England were the favorites, did not play as well as they could have in the KO game, and the other team played better cricket than them and so they lost. Not exactly a first in any sport, is it?
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Right, just because they lost doesn't mean they weren't the favourites. Just because you're favourites doesn't mean youre guaranteed to win the tournament.
Unless you're mid 2000s Australia or something stupid like that.
Unless you're mid 2000s Australia or something stupid like that.
England were most definitely favourites for the tournament.
They were knocked out in a KO game. It happens.
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa didn't make it past the group stage.
England fans aren't the losers here. That person who bet on South Africa, Australia and New Zealand has clearly proven his lack of cricketing nous. The betting site thanks him for parting with his money.
They were knocked out in a KO game. It happens.
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa didn't make it past the group stage.
England fans aren't the losers here. That person who bet on South Africa, Australia and New Zealand has clearly proven his lack of cricketing nous. The betting site thanks him for parting with his money.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Short answer: Batting yes, Bowling not at all.
They need Anderson and Broad back asap if they want to have a realistic chance in 2019. You can't win a World Cup with Jake Ball and Moeen Ali's pies.
South Africa and Australia will come back stronger in 2019. India will remain strong. England can't win with this bowling if they don't score 330+ EVERY match.
Last edited:
Bijed
International Regular
I agree that our bowling is generally not great, but I really don't think our plans for the 2019 WC should involve Anderson
srbhkshk
International Captain
But you should get Broad or at least one bowler who can take advantage of the conditions favorable to bowlers even though he might go for runs on flatter decks. That's probably the only problem with England's ODI team currently - both their Batting and Bowling are optimized for Batting friendly conditions - the Batsmen get 330+ invariably and the bowlers do an ok defensive job, however typically on harder to bat tracks their batting suffers quite a bit but the bowling doesn't quite compensate for that.
In theory that's actually good for England because most ODI decks are flat anyway so they have a great chance in most series. But it doesn't quite work in a knock out situation.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Also because typically in tournament play conditions do get slower and lower as the tourney goes on and pitches are baked in the weather more and more. And God forbid if there is another heatwave (
) in 2019, England will need to learn how to play in these type of wickets..
) in 2019, England will need to learn how to play in these type of wickets..ArsalanSajid
Cricket Spectator
English team was favorite for the tournament. After India they were the second most favorite team to take the trophy, that was because of 15 players they had in squad and also for the advantage of home grounds but English team made their way out themselves by not making good use of conditions and also for realizing Bairstow`s competitiveness so late in the tournament.
What evidence is there that South Africa will come back stronger? They will win a load of bilaterals then be shite in the tournament if history is a judge.
