Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[Zinzan]

Hmmmm thats right 1999 wasn't it

 

[C_C]

Yes, but that's only because he's at his peak fitness-wise. It has nothing to do with cricketing skill.

SIGH.
It is ironic that so many englishmen here are so poor in english.
Flintoff is at his physical peak - and his performance at his very best isnt very jaw dropping by alltime standards - you'd find that MOST great or excellent bowlers have superior bowling figures through their peak.... which is why i said Flintoff is nowhere CLOSE to being considered an excellent bowler and which is why, coupled with his overall figures, he still has a LONG way to go.

 

[C_C]

A better question is when did India last beat NZ in a test match, let alone a test series????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And therefore, by that argument, when was the last time England beat India in a test series ?
1996. Oh yippee.
I just love people who bring up points that invalidate their own previous arguments.

 

[Zinzan]

Don't be silly. You should be aware that the top five are Australia, England, India, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

Look at the ICC rankings buddy !!! Or do you make your own rankings ???????

NZ have beaten both Sri lanka and India at home at drawn away last time they played them...including a crushing win over Sri lanka only 5 months ago.

Not very informed are you !!!!!!

 

[Zinzan]

Sri lanka are behind NZ

 

[C_C]

Did you see his over to Langer and Ponting? Did you think it showed a bit of potential?

I bet you can't wait, licking your lips in anticipation even, to watch the Old Trafford and Oval tests in particular to see that one over potential demonstrated to be just the tip of the iceberg. Watch out for some truly memorable spells of fast bowling. I particularly recommend his demolition of Hayden in the second and Katich in the first innings (and second as a direct consequence) at Old Trafford, and obviously you should fast forward to the fourth morning at the Oval. Enjoy!

Look- Flintoff being #2 in the world is nothing hoo -ha. McGrath is playing on one heel and Akhtar is inactive, with pollock going southwards. Hell, even if he was better than Vaas( which he by no means is) he is nowhere near the ballpark of the top 5 bowlers( let alone #2) from the past 5 decades or so.

 

[greg]

Look at the ICC rankings buddy !!! Or do you make your own rankings ???????

NZ have beaten both Sri lanka and India at home at drawn away last time they played them...including a crushing win over Sri lanka only 5 months ago.

Not very informed are you !!!!!!

It was a joke zinzan. Those are C_C's top five.

 

[C_C]

Look at the ICC rankings buddy !!! Or do you make your own rankings ???????

The ICC ranking is as relevant as a pearl before a swine.
And dont even go to the players ranking.......i have already shown before that it is utter tosh.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I actually didnt say you are a racist- atleast i didnt intend to - i was pointing out that drawing a conclusion about my tilt on a matter because of my race is racist in nature.

As is someone saying "typically English attitude", but I don't throw a hissy fit every time someone says it (and people say it quite often around here).

Anyhoo, being a gentleman I can take my medicine, so please forgive my perceived insult sir.

 

[Zinzan]

And therefore, by that argument, when was the last time England beat India in a test series ?
1996. Oh yippee.
I just love people who bring up points that invalidate their own previous arguments.

As i thought .....you couldn't answer the question. Instead a feeble attempt to divert your argument.

The difference is that I haven't been rubbishing India. I just find it interesting that you totally discredit England's 3-0 win over NZ (and the ashes by the sound of it) yet the great contender for 2nd place as far as your concerned has only managed a home series drawn (which NZ outplayed them) last time they played them and an away series loss 2-0 !!!!!!!!!!

Your having a shocker

 

[Zinzan]

It was a joke zinzan. Those are C_C's top five.

Fair enough....you had me fired up !!

 

[Zinzan]

The ICC ranking is as relevant as a pearl before a swine.
And dont even go to the players ranking.......i have already shown before that it is utter tosh.

Oh right.....But your rankings are Gospel right??

Of course the C_C ranking !!! very credible indeed

 

[Barney Rubble]

I suppose thats why you argued in that Ian Botham thread that Botham didnt get found out because he played a lotta matches in the latter part of his career not fully fit.

I haven't ever posted in any Ian Botham thread. He retired when I was about five, and I have seen very little of him playing, so I refrain from commenting on him, because, unlike some, I accept that I do not know everything about everyone. Perhaps when you next post, you can actually think about what you're saying. It might help others to not think you're a complete idiot.

 

[greg]

Look- Flintoff being #2 in the world is nothing hoo -ha. McGrath is playing on one heel and Akhtar is inactive, with pollock going southwards. Hell, even if he was better than Vaas( which he by no means is) he is nowhere near the ballpark of the top 5 bowlers( let alone #2) from the past 5 decades or so.

I don't know what your post had to do with mine, but there we are. I was just pointing out that to dismiss Flintoff's performance in the series on the basis of the first two tests seems a bit silly. Akhtar is not inactive last i checked.

And as for the significance of being #2 (or 1) in the world. Well that has no more and no less significance than saying that he is #2 in the world. It does not say anything for his position historically. That is why (as you seem incapable of understanding) the vast majority of these discussions are about what the situation is CURRENTLY, at this time, based on present evidence, involving players at this time. When people are arguing that England are or are not the best side in the world they are talking about CURRENTLY, if they were to play another side today or tomorrow. There may not be enough evidence to back up that claim, their players may be unproven, but that does not mean that it is WRONG. It is just a view that is open to significant, reasoned opposition. Bradman had proven little after his first year of test cricket, however with hindsight we can probably say that he was the best player in the world at that time, however much justifiable opposition there may have been to that view at the time. People have opinions, some are more valid than others based on solid arguments, but until proven wrong they can still be right.

On the evidence England were expected to lose the Ashes. On the evidence (and the fact that they were already 1-0 down) they were still probably expected to lose after McGrath's injury. But they didn't. Those who back the unproven England were ultimately correct.

 

[C_C]

As i thought .....you couldn't answer the question. Instead a feeble attempt to divert your argument.

The difference is that I haven't been rubbishing India. I just find it interesting that you totally discredit England's 3-0 win over NZ (and the ashes by the sound of it) yet the great contender for 2nd place as far as your concerned has only managed a home series drawn (which NZ outplayed them) last time they played them and an away series loss 2-0 !!!!!!!!!!

Your having a shocker

Please read my arguments before you jump the gun.
I havnt rubbished England either- infact i picked them as the #2 team currently- my contention is that it is a small gap between England and some other nations in cricket today, like India for example.
And i havnt rubbished their victory over New Zealand or Australia- i have credited them...which is why i didnt include NZ in the list of minnows when i said half of english victories are against minnows in the last six tests or so.

 

[C_C]

Oh right.....But your rankings are Gospel right??

Of course the C_C ranking !!! very credible indeed

I never said that they are gospel- but i do believe that they are more logically consistent than ICC rankings and the former PwC rankings.
If i can find flaw in it and if the simulation doesnt converge, it is flawed. Simple as that.

 

[C_C]

I haven't ever posted in any Ian Botham thread. He retired when I was about five, and I have seen very little of him playing, so I refrain from commenting on him, because, unlike some, I accept that I do not know everything about everyone. Perhaps when you next post, you can actually think about what you're saying. It might help others to not think you're a complete idiot.

Okay, fair enough - i must've confused with someone else.
But my point still stands - if you really believe that McGrath in his second match or third match this ashes was actually fit, you really are stretching the limits of belieivability.

 

[C_C]

I don't know what your post had to do with mine, but there we are. I was just pointing out that to dismiss Flintoff's performance in the series on the basis of the first two tests seems a bit silly. Akhtar is not inactive last i checked.

And as for the significance of being #2 (or 1) in the world. Well that has no more and no less significance than saying that he is #2 in the world. It does not say anything for his position historically. That is why (as you seem incapable of understanding) the vast majority of these discussions are about what the situation is CURRENTLY, at this time, based on present evidence, involving players at this time. When people are arguing that England are or are not the best side in the world they are talking about CURRENTLY, if they were to play another side today or tomorrow. There may not be enough evidence to back up that claim, their players may be unproven, but that does not mean that it is WRONG. It is just a view that is open to significant, reasoned opposition. Bradman had proven little after his first year of test cricket, however with hindsight we can probably say that he was the best player in the world at that time, however much justifiable opposition there may have been to that view at the time. People have opinions, some are more valid than others based on solid arguments, but until proven wrong they can still be right.

On the evidence England were expected to lose the Ashes. On the evidence (and the fact that they were already 1-0 down) they were still probably expected to lose after McGrath's injury. But they didn't. Those who back the unproven England were ultimately correct.

Well we are talking Test cricket here, arnt we ? Akhtar hasnt played test cricket for a while now.
And as per the 'currently' argument - my contention( incase you missed it) is that England has been perfrorming well for the last 2 years or so and in that span, a large chunk of their victories have come against very poor opposition, like WI, BD and ZIM.
As such, England needs to perform atleast at this level ( ie, beat a few good teams and annihilate the minnows) for a few more years before they can be considered a good team , as i define 'good' teams to be teams like South Africa of the 90s or Pakistan of the 80s.
Due to their rather recent good form, which is, for a fairly large chunk victories against minnows, the gap between England ( #2) and the #3-#4 team is rather close.

 

[Zinzan]

Please read my arguments before you jump the gun.
I havnt rubbished England either- infact i picked them as the #2 team currently- my contention is that it is a small gap between England and some other nations in cricket today, like India for example.
And i havnt rubbished their victory over New Zealand or Australia- i have credited them...which is why i didnt include NZ in the list of minnows when i said half of english victories are against minnows in the last six tests or so.

On the contrary....I'm well behind the gun. I did actually notice you didn't include NZ (thankfully) along with the minnows in that recent post, but it's am earlier post (a few days ago) I'm referring to where you talked-down England's 3-0 victory over NZ.

 

[C_C]

I'm referring to where you talked-down England's 3-0 victory over NZ.

I said that beating a bond-less zimbabwe is not really a sign of greatness or excellence. I am sure it really was such an unfair comment, given the galore of worldclass players new zealand has minus bond.