Are England The Real Deal?

[Furball]

We all know they are there but lets be honest they aren't a great benchmark. It would be like counting Zimbabwe for African conditions before a tour of SA.

They're a better benchmark than Pakistan.

 

[Howe_zat]

i agree with jono that england's batting is actually their strength. but what impresses me most about the team is their ability to fight back from terrible positions and win the majority of the important moments. they don't know when they are beaten and that is mightily impressive.

the windies attack comparison was only made by me since the stats connected to the number of times teams were bowled out for sub 100 scores was brought up, which i thought could be a red herring. again, i might be totally wrong...and would be happy to be so!

but interesting discussion this.

Ftr, I wasn't saying that the England attack is better than that of the 1980s Windies. Just that what they've achieved has been very, very impressive, considering even the best attacks in history haven't repeatedly demolished sides in a year like England have.

 

[Bun]

Doesn't matter, you said England hadn't played in the subcontinent, which wasn't true.

And the pitches we played on in the West Indies series makes Ahmedabad look like a minefield, so I'm not really sure what your point was.

point A: Bangbatters aren't hallmark of batting prowess anywhere even at home.

point B: Bowling to WI in WI regardless of pitches again aren't equal to bowling to india/SL in India/SL.

 

[Teja.]

Quoting for epic pwnage after the series...

Haha,

India most certainly is not winning the WC though. SA has a murderous top-order too and actually has a bowling attack.

Paris Hilton winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a likelier event than England defending the Ashes.

History is on your side.

 

[GIMH]

Did you see that Windies series Bun?

 

[Howe_zat]

point A: Bangbatters aren't hallmark of batting prowess anywhere even at home.

point B: Bowling to WI in WI regardless of pitches again aren't equal to bowling to india/SL in India/SL.

So why not say "In India & SL" as oppose to "In the subcontinent?"

Because you wanted to make it sound, falsely, as though they'd missed a whole section of the globe when really it's just two countries.

 

[Howe_zat]

Haha,





History is on your side.

****.

 

[Dissector]

This thread has basically become people that have watched a lot of England lately saying they're good and people who have looked at their statistical record over the past few years saying they're not so good.

Actually the first person to bring in stats was Kiwivictor arguing that England's bowling had been "fearsome". I was merely pointing out that if you separate out the good batting sides they don't look nearly as good. If you are going to use stats, might as well do it properly

I think England's bowling is decent enough and has excellent depth. They have had some great performances in the last few years. Calling them "fearsome" is going too far IMO.

 

[centurymaker]

England has an awesome record over the last 2-3 years too though. Up until Oct last year everyone thought Australia was on par with the other top 3 and it was a four way race to the top. England completely annihilated them away from home. England's batting records are ****ing immense over the last 2 years as well along with having arguably the best bowling attack in the world. Anyway you look at it, England has been an outrageously good team over the last two years.

Can India come close to replicating later this year in Oz what England did in the Ashes? I don't think so.

England to win the coming series 3-1 or 2-0, IMO.

3-1 prediction is definitely not going to come true- how can you expect all games to end in a result?
1-1 would be the best bet.
Plus English bowling is overrated- people are Now making it sound like an ATG attack.
Broad, Tremlett, Swann aren't far ahead of Sree, Ishant and Harbi outside SC.

 

[Bun]

So why not say "In India & SL" as oppose to "In the subcontinent?"

Good point.

Frankly am confused. I thought in CW test cricket didn't include the ones played in/against Bangladesh, and cricket isnt being played anymore in Pakistan.

But yeah, I get the drift, should be more careful now.

 

[Bun]

Haha,





History is on your side.

Did you see that Windies series Bun?

I didn't watch every ball of that series, but I followed it enough to understand barring one match, it was played on placid wickets. But that doesn't discount the fact that English bowlers were below par, nor that England in India/SL will be up against batsmen a notch or two above in class as compared to WI batsmen.

 

[GIMH]

I didn't watch every ball of that series, but I followed it enough to understand barring one match, it was played on placid wickets. But that doesn't discount the fact that English bowlers were below par, nor that England in India/SL will be up against batsmen a notch or two above in class as compared to WI batsmen.

The England bowlers that still play for us were not below par in that series. Swann made his name during it, Broad put in one of his finest series to date and Anderson was hugely understated by his figures.

Harmison, Sidebottom, Amjad Khan etc were below par but not those still in the side.

 

[Howe_zat]

The England bowlers that still play for us were not below par in that series. Swann made his name during it, Broad put in one of his finest series to date and Anderson was hugely understated by his figures.

Harmison, Sidebottom, Amjad Khan etc were below par but not those still in the side.

Would suggest Amjad Khan was precisely on par for him, really.

Pains me to remember how poor Sidebottom was. An absolute world-beater before he got injured in '08.

 

[Bun]

The England bowlers that still play for us were not below par in that series. Swann made his name during it, Broad put in one of his finest series to date and Anderson was hugely understated by his figures.

Harmison, Sidebottom, Amjad Khan etc were below par but not those still in the side.

I dont rate Broad at all sorry. I believe there are genuine reasons for not to. I dont think he's going to be a threat if the on going SL series is any indication.

I do rate and love Swanneh. But he's going to be up against a set of best batsmen in the world. He is going to get smashed around.

Tiny Trem is good also, but again, I believe Indian batsmen who have made their dough in Aus etc have the game to counter his style of bowling in tests.

The only chap I fear is undoubtedly Anderson. He was a handful last time and literally owned Sachin in that tour. If he gets going, and if the others can be atleast disciplined, England has a good chance.

 

[Austerlitz]

England has an awesome record over the last 2-3 years too though. Up until Oct last year everyone thought Australia was on par with the other top 3 and it was a four way race to the top. England completely annihilated them away from home. England's batting records are ****ing immense over the last 2 years as well along with having arguably the best bowling attack in the world. Anyway you look at it, England has been an outrageously good team over the last two years.

Can India come close to replicating later this year in Oz what England did in the Ashes? I don't think so.

England to win the coming series 3-1 or 2-0, IMO.

I think 1-0 or 2-1 eng most likely.1-1second chance.
I think england might get past our batting 2times in 5 days with some effort once in 4 tests,lets see if we can do the same.
3-1 and 2-0 is for people getting carried away,because like it or not india does have an atg batting line up while england bowling lineup falls short of that category.

 

[Uppercut]

I dont rate Broad at all sorry. I believe there are genuine reasons for not to. I dont think he's going to be a threat if the on going SL series is any indication.

I do rate and love Swanneh. But he's going to be up against a set of best batsmen in the world. He is going to get smashed around.

Tiny Trem is good also, but again, I believe Indian batsmen who have made their dough in Aus etc have the game to counter his style of bowling in tests.

The only chap I fear is undoubtedly Anderson. He was a handful last time and literally owned Sachin in that tour. If he gets going, and if the others can be atleast disciplined, England has a good chance.

Wtf, you just completely changed the subject. He was showing how the West Indies series, if you look at it in any depth at all, doesn't demonstrate any kind of weakness in England's current bowling attack. Not inviting you to rant about England's attack.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think 1-0 or 2-1 eng most likely.1-1second chance.
I think england might get past our batting 2times in 5 days with some effort once in 4 tests,lets see if we can do the same.
3-1 and 2-0 is for people getting carried away,because like it or not india does have an atg batting line up while england bowling lineup falls short of that category.

Trouble is the ATG India batting has Sehwag and Laxman who have both got averages in the 30's against England so we don't fear them and with Ghambir + the 6th bat who have never played in England before that means a lot depends on Tendulkar and Dravid who both have excellent records here (both average over 60) but are getting on in years.

Not so fearsome a line up now is it.

 

[Howe_zat]

Trouble is the ATG India batting has Sehwag and Laxman who have both got averages in the 30's against England so we don't fear them and with Ghambir + the 6th bat who have never played in England before that means a lot depends on Tendulkar and Dravid who both have excellent records here (both average over 60) but are getting on in years.

Not so fearsome a line up now is it.

Heh, speak for yourself. I'd trade a kidney to have those two in the side. Maybe even a testicle.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd take both too. Actually, if one were to pick a composite Anglo-Indian test XI who'd be in it?

I'd go for:

Sehwag
Cook*
Trott
Tendulkar
Laxman
Bell
Prior+
Swann
Zaheer
Tremlett
Anderson

No Pietersen or Dravid.

 

[GotSpin]

Pretty weak side. Shame you don't have a Hilfenhaus