Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[Scaly piscine]

Where's that 'Do not feed the troll' picture?

 

[Swervy]

I am giving an example. If you wanna get specific, i would say that a 2-1 loss to AUS is just a lil worse result than a 7-0 thumping of WI.

oh sweet jeez....but England also BEAT Australia 2-1 as well as 2-1 vs SA, and 3-0 vs NZ..which is lightyears ahead of a 2-1 loss to Australia,1-1 at home to Pakistan, 2-1 away to Pakistan, 1-0 home to SA, and previous to that the 1-1 draw vs Australia ,and getting dicked by NZ

 

[greg]

I am giving an example. If you wanna get specific, i would say that a 2-1 loss to AUS is just a lil worse result than a 7-0 thumping of WI.

And a 7-0 defeat of Windies AND a 2-1 defeat of Australia AND at 2-1 win in South Africa AND a 3-0 defeat of NZ is worth a lot more than a 2-1 loss to Australia AND er,... they had a respectable result against Pakistan I think.

 

[C_C]

I think you are really overstating how well India have done in the last couple of years, and understating the acheivements of the England team...

I just cant see what the Indian team have done on a consistant basis which allows you to say the gap between England and India is minimal...and dont spout on about series results from years ago...it doesnt matter about those, too far in the past to matter

No i am not.
There are some obvious pointers for rating a team's performance.

For the last 5 years, this is a perfectly logical means of rating it, going by per test :

1. Loss against OZ gets marked low( unless you manage to be totally humiliated ala Paksitan in sharjah) and victories against them gets marked pretty high

2. Loss at home gets marked higher than loss away from home

3. Wins at home gets marked lower than wins away from home

4. Performance against minnows ( WI, ZIM, BD) get marked a small amount per test

5. A team having its core members performing for a longer period has a more established track record than a team performing with a new set of players working for a short time together.

You'd find that based on such criterions, England and India are pretty close. India scores more points on #5 and #1, England scores more points for #2,3 and #4. Since #4 is a very lightweight category, its essentially #2 and #3 for England - i agree that they've done slightly better than India but any statement that they are vastly superior is simply jingoism caught up in this once-in-a-lifetime-for-most-members-here Ashes victory.

 

[C_C]

Where's that 'Do not feed the troll' picture?

Right under your name.

 

[C_C]

And a 7-0 defeat of Windies AND a 2-1 defeat of Australia AND at 2-1 win in South Africa AND a 3-0 defeat of NZ is worth a lot more than a 2-1 loss to Australia AND er,... they had a respectable result against Pakistan I think.

Except that India's record against OZ is much superior to England's over the past 5-10 years or so.
You forget- you are comparing one team who's core has been together for the last 7-8 years to another who's core has been together for the past couple. England are very much the quintessential upstart right now and an upstart does not upstage a well established team performing consistently for over twice the same period due to playing a lotta matches against the minnows for a couple of years.

 

[C_C]

oh sweet jeez....but England also BEAT Australia 2-1 as well as 2-1 vs SA, and 3-0 vs NZ..which is lightyears ahead of a 2-1 loss to Australia,1-1 at home to Pakistan, 2-1 away to Pakistan, 1-0 home to SA, and previous to that the 1-1 draw vs Australia ,and getting dicked by NZ

No it isnt. a 1-1 draw away from home is pretty credible compared to a 2-1 victory at home.
You cannot criticise india's away performance and then give disproportionate rating to a home victory against the Aussies.
that is inconsistent.

And 2-1 vs RSa, 3-0 vs NZ is pretty frickin close to 1-1 vs PAK, 2-1 vs PAK and 1-0 vs RSA.

 

[greg]

No i am not.
There are some obvious pointers for rating a team's performance.

For the last 5 years, this is a perfectly logical means of rating it, going by per test :

1. Loss against OZ gets marked low( unless you manage to be totally humiliated ala Paksitan in sharjah) and victories against them gets marked pretty high

2. Loss at home gets marked higher than loss away from home

3. Wins at home gets marked lower than wins away from home

4. Performance against minnows ( WI, ZIM, BD) get marked a small amount per test

5. A team having its core members performing for a longer period has a more established track record than a team performing with a new set of players working for a short time together.

You'd find that based on such criterions, England and India are pretty close. India scores more points on #5 and #1, England scores more points for #2,3 and #4. Since #4 is a very lightweight category, its essentially #2 and #3 for England - i agree that they've done slightly better than India but any statement that they are vastly superior is simply jingoism caught up in this once-in-a-lifetime-for-most-members-here Ashes victory.

Performance against minnows only get marked a small amount if you comprehensively thrash them, surely? Losing to them, or even having close games, should count massively against you.

 

[C_C]

Performance against minnows only get marked a small amount if you comprehensively thrash them, surely? Losing to them, or even having close games, should count massively against you.

It counts more than winning against minnows but the very fact that it is against minnows makes it a small marker. Success is measured by your performance against the best, not against the worst.
We dont deny that Sobers is a great bat because he did **** poor against NZ, the minnows of his time, do we ?
But for someone like say Ganguly or Kallis, we hold it against them that they have almost never scored against a top-notch bowling attack.
Andre Agassi is considered a great player because he competed against the very best pretty well. Even though he has lost more often than many top 50 players against total nobodies.
Why ? because minnows dont matter either which way much. how good you are - sports-wise or intellectually, is always a question of how you compare with the best far more heavily than you how compare with the worst.

 

[Swervy]

No i am not.
There are some obvious pointers for rating a team's performance.

For the last 5 years, this is a perfectly logical means of rating it, going by per test :.

5 years....Two England players in the recent series played in the last test vs WI in 2000, Vaughan and Trescothick...that was Trescos first series,and Vaughans had hardly played before then. So how can you compare the teams. Indias team doesnt look similar to what it was 5 years ago either..apart from Dravid,Tendulkar and the rapidly declining Ganguly....and WHY FIVE YEARS. Far too long in my mind, and probably everyone else with half a brain on the game.

1. Loss against OZ gets marked low( unless you manage to be totally humiliated ala Paksitan in sharjah) and victories against them gets marked pretty high.

no **** Sherlock...and India have just lost 2-1 to Australia and England won 2-1

2. Loss at home gets marked higher than loss away from home.

Really? You dont say!!!!

3. Wins at home gets marked lower than wins away from home.

So you admit the 2-1 win for England in a 5 test series ranks higher than Indias home 1-0 win in a two test series!!!!

4. Performance against minnows ( WI, ZIM, BD) get marked a small amount per test.

Well using your thing that we can measure a teams strength on how they were 5 years ago..I seem to remember India losing 2-1 the last time India played in the WI.

Now I dont think that is relevent to now..but you do, so I guess you will have to live with that

5. A team having its core members performing for a longer period has a more established track record than a team performing with a new set of players working for a short time together.

See point 1. Past reputations count for little if results dont come in....

You'd find that based on such criterions, England and India are pretty close. India scores more points on #5 and #1, England scores more points for #2,3 and #4. Since #4 is a very lightweight category, its essentially #2 and #3 for England - i agree that they've done slightly better than India but any statement that they are vastly superior is simply jingoism caught up in this once-in-a-lifetime-for-most-members-here Ashes victory.

Erm...nah

Results wise I see thay have done miles better than India..and just by watching I can see that England are better by a distance as well.

I am not English,and I remember the other times when England have held the Ashes. I just can see that this England team is very very good..India isnt a very good test team. Hence the gap between the two in my mind (yes it is my opinion)....and the stats only back my opinion up

 

[Swervy]

It counts more than winning against minnows but the very fact that it is against minnows makes it a small marker. Success is measured by your performance against the best, not against the worst.
We dont deny that Sobers is a great bat because he did **** poor against NZ, the minnows of his time, do we ?
But for someone like say Ganguly or Kallis, we hold it against them that they have almost never scored against a top-notch bowling attack.
Andre Agassi is considered a great player because he competed against the very best pretty well. Even though he has lost more often than many top 50 players against total nobodies.
Why ? because minnows dont matter either which way much. how good you are - sports-wise or intellectually, is always a question of how you compare with the best far more heavily than you how compare with the worst.

so if someone lost 5-0 to B'desh it wouldnt matter then....

 

[greg]

I am not English,and I remember the other times when England have held the Ashes. I just can see that this England team is very very good..India isnt a very good test team. Hence the gap between the two in my mind (yes it is my opinion)....and the stats only back my opinion up

You really should change your location, if only because it's extremely unfair on respected posters who want to accuse you of jingoism

I also think C_C should change his location from "World". It's very unfair that everyone can't see that he's from Canada.

 

[C_C]

5 years....Two England players in the recent series played in the last test vs WI in 2000, Vaughan and Trescothick...that was Trescos first series,and Vaughans had hardly played before then. So how can you compare the teams. Indias team doesnt look similar to what it was 5 years ago either..apart from Dravid,Tendulkar and the rapidly declining Ganguly....and WHY FIVE YEARS. Far too long in my mind, and probably everyone else with half a brain on the game.

India has had Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman, Kumble -pretty much half the team- for around 7-8 years now.
And England hasnt played much together ? No shyte sherlock!
Therefore, they do NOT have an established track record and for all we know, this is just a 2 years in the sunshine akin to a golden run oh so many teams have oh ever so often. You wanna see how well india did in a 2-4 years span in the early 70s ? Or NZ in a certain 2 year period in the 80s ? How about if i bring in soccer ? how many times have you seen a team rise to the top and then go crashing back down after a season or two ?

if England doesnt have an established track record, it is too bloody soon to be rating them so highly.
England's claim to fame so far = score about half its victories against minnows ( btw, no other team has played as many minnows as England in the same period) over a 2 years sunshine and presto! they are oh so much better!

This is a fundamental contradiction in the arguments of those who think England as of now is a clear # 2 - they have not done it for long enough and that too, playing more minnows than any other team in this period!

 

[C_C]

so if someone lost 5-0 to B'desh it wouldnt matter then....

Not if they scored a 2-2 draw against OZ right after it !
Just like how Sobers's failure against a bona fide minnow of his times ( New Zealand) matters jack diddly squat, since he clobbered two of the best attacks of his time- England and OZ- pretty convincingly.

 

[Swervy]

You really should change your location, if only because it's extremely unfair on respected posters who want to accuse you of jingoism

I also think C_C should change his location from "World". It's very unfair that everyone can't see that he's from Canada.

I actually keep the location to reflect where I live, and not where I am from, because I enjoy it when idiots accuse me of being a one eyed pommie git, just because I say this team is good.

It seems to confuse them when I tell them I am Australian and support Australia

 

[C_C]

I actually keep the location to reflect where I live, and not where I am from, because I enjoy it when idiots accuse me of being a one eyed pommie git, just because I say this team is good.

It seems to confuse them when I tell them I am Australian and support Australia

An Aussie supporting a pommie ( and vice versa) over other nations ? You dont say! like i've never seen THAT before!

 

[Swervy]

India has had Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman, Kumble -pretty much half the team- for around 7-8 years now.
And England hasnt played much together ? No shyte sherlock!
Therefore, they do NOT have an established track record and for all we know, this is just a 2 years in the sunshine akin to a golden run oh so many teams have oh ever so often. You wanna see how well india did in a 2-4 years span in the early 70s ? Or NZ in a certain 2 year period in the 80s ? How about if i bring in soccer ? how many times have you seen a team rise to the top and then go crashing back down after a season or two ?

if England doesnt have an established track record, it is too bloody soon to be rating them so highly.
England's claim to fame so far = score about half its victories against minnows ( btw, no other team has played as many minnows as England in the same period) over a 2 years sunshine and presto! they are oh so much better!

This is a fundamental contradiction in the arguments of those who think England as of now is a clear # 2 - they have not done it for long enough and that too, playing more minnows than any other team in this period!

But India havent done anything apart from a 1-1 in draw in Australia in the last couple of years. They have basically done what they were expected to do vs some average teams, and actually did worse than expected against some others (ie pakistan at home)

Its strange how you ignore all my other comments and dont provide responses to them..is it too hard to explain your way out of it.

face it CC, you are trying every trick in the ********ters Handbook to talk your way into getting people to accept you are right...but with me at least it doesnt wash.

You avoid the issue that some players standard of play increases with time, some decreases with time, Ganguly is crap now, Tendulkar isnt the play he was 5 years ago, laxman has never really convinced on a consistant basis...do you really think this Indian team is playing at a level it was at its peak, which was about 3 years ago. If you do, you are kidding yourself.

India have done nothing close to the acheivements England have produced in the last two years, and you know it..for some reason you have some problem with the success England are having

 

[Zinzan]

But India havent done anything apart from a 1-1 in draw in Australia in the last couple of years. They have basically done what they were expected to do vs some average teams, and actually did worse than expected against some others (ie pakistan at home)

Its strange how you ignore all my other comments and dont provide responses to them..is it too hard to explain your way out of it.

face it CC, you are trying every trick in the ********ters Handbook to talk your way into getting people to accept you are right...but with me at least it doesnt wash.

You avoid the issue that some players standard of play increases with time, some decreases with time, Ganguly is crap now, Tendulkar isnt the play he was 5 years ago, laxman has never really convinced on a consistant basis...do you really think this Indian team is playing at a level it was at its peak, which was about 3 years ago. If you do, you are kidding yourself.

India have done nothing close to the acheivements England have produced in the last two years, and you know it..for some reason you have some problem with the success England are having

Quite right Swervy.....I can can certainly tell you from a NZ fans point of view ...I worry far more playing the England Test side than playing India, because India have been hopeless against NZ since 99 home or away....NZ has a far better record in the last 3 series against India. But I'll no doubt be labelled a racist by someone soon by pointing out facts..

 

[Swervy]

An Aussie supporting a pommie ( and vice versa) over other nations ? You dont say! like i've never seen THAT before!

I say it as I see it. ..if I see a good team, I will say they are a good team, no matter where they are from.

I have seen the England team hyped up way beyond their abilities (see when they beat WI in 2000), and not been impressed... and told people that at the time...Richard still thinks that was a good England team, and I have frequently said to him he is kidding himself.

However, what I have seen of this England team in the last 18 months has been brilliant, and they are playing at a level with is on a level with Australia..simple as.

As I say...I say as I see it.

 

[C_C]

Quite right Swervy.....I can can certainly tell you from a NZ fans point of view ...I worry far more playing the England Test side than playing India, because India have been hopeless against NZ since 99 home or away....NZ has a far better record in the last 3 series against India. But I'll no doubt be labelled a racist by someone soon by pointing out facts..

And from an Indian perspective, i worry far more when we play RSA than when we play Australia.
Therefore, it is oh-so-justified to conclude that South Africa is a better team than Australia.