Aren't the Englaishmen getting carried away??

[greg]

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.

Not sure on what you base that considering you haven't watched the games yet. FWIW I think McGrath clearly wasn't fit for the Old Trafford Test. At the Oval he was probably as close as possible (considering most bowlers are carrying little niggles most of the time) to full fitness, but was clearly short of match practice something which was evident from his improved performance in the second innings.

 

[C_C]

Not sure on what you base that considering you haven't watched the game yet.

You dont need to watch a game to realise that a person isnt fully fit after twisting their ankle in just a 2 week span- mate, i used to play juniors tennis seriously and i have gone over my ankles many times- i know for a fact that it doesnt heal in a matter of couple of weeks- even if you take painkillers, your foot is numb and you cant run properly.

 

[greg]

You dont need to watch a game to realise that a person isnt fully fit after twisting their ankle in just a 2 week span- mate, i used to play juniors tennis seriously and i have gone over my ankles many times- i know for a fact that it doesnt heal in a matter of couple of weeks- even if you take painkillers, your foot is numb and you cant run properly.

Perhaps you should read my whole post before jumping in

 

[C_C]

Perhaps you should read my whole post before jumping in

I did - i wasnt commenting or contradicting what YOU think on the issue- i was commenting on the part where you said i needed to watch the match before i know if an ankle sprain cures up in 2 weeks or not.

 

[Zinzan]

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.

Then Kindly explain why NZ thrashed Sri Lanka just 5 months ago without Bond?? and why they had the better of the recent drawn series in India (again without Bond). India and Sri lanka do have world-class players......Why haven't they been able to put away NZ for years in a test series ?????? Home or away ????

Could it be that there's more to a good team than simply being stacked with world-class players??? Ever think of that

By that argument surely both Sri lanka and India should have taken NZ to the cleaners in the last 5 years or so.....but they haven't ....even stacked with all these worldclass players. England did it

Just answer the question please C_C

 

[greg]

I did - i wasnt commenting or contradicting what YOU think on the issue- i was commenting on the part where you said i needed to watch the match before i know if an ankle sprain cures up in 2 weeks or not.

You didn't limit McGrath's lack of fitness to the Old Trafford Test. (his "second or third test") His ankle wasn't even his problem at Trent Bridge (and the lead up to the Oval).

 

[C_C]

Then Kindly explain why NZ thrashed Sri Lanka just 5 months ago without Bond?? and why they had the better of the recent drawn series in India (again without Bond). India and Sri lanka do have world-class players......Why haven't they been able to put away NZ for years in a test series ?????? Home or away ????

Could it be that there's more to a good team than simply being stacked with world-class players??? Ever think of that

By that argument surely both Sri lanka and India should have taken NZ to the cleaners in the last 5 years or so.....but they haven't ....even stacked with all these worldclass players. England did it

Just answer the question please C_C

Irrelevant really. Bashing weak teams doesnt make a good team - as i said, logically, a win against a good team must get marked more than a win against a weak team and a loss against a weak team must be marked more severely than a loss against a good team.
India struggles to put away weak teams - they have for a while. Much more than england does when it comes to ruthlessly crushing a weak team. But India does a lot better when it comes to playing a great team - as evidenced by their much superior record against OZ over the recent times ( past 4-5 years). Those things balance each other out somewhat.
Obviously India's performance has a lot to be desired as well, which is why i rate the team marginally behind England's.
Anyways, its 3:30 am, i need some sleep. Gnite.

 

[greg]

Don't bother Zinzan. Every thread involving C_C in recent days has ended in the same ridiculous arguments. (which has even extended as far as claiming that Slanka's record against Australia is better than England's, even though we've just beaten them and they have a record as bad as England's used to be). Short of having beaten what was then thought of as a pretty weak England team 1-0 at home 2 years ago, I'm not sure why he views results vs SLanka as of any significance whatsoever (and that's charitably by focussing on a rigorous stats results based approach)! They lose to the weak teams (NZ) and the "great" teams (Australia)

 

[C_C]

which has even extended as far as claiming that Slanka's record against Australia is better than England's, even though we've just beaten them and they have a record as bad as England's used to be

I actually ammended that.
You'd find that despite the allegations of being 'ridiculous and a crank', i am the one of the few folks who's actually ammended his views based on facts instead of just disappearing or ignoring them.

Every thread involving C_C in recent days has ended in the same ridiculous arguments

Which havnt been logically refuted at all.

 

[Zinzan]

Irrelevant really. Bashing weak teams doesnt make a good team - as i said, logically, a win against a good team must get marked more than a win against a weak team and a loss against a weak team must be marked more severely than a loss against a good team.
India struggles to put away weak teams - they have for a while. Much more than england does when it comes to ruthlessly crushing a weak team. But India does a lot better when it comes to playing a great team - as evidenced by their much superior record against OZ over the recent times ( past 4-5 years). Those things balance each other out somewhat.
Obviously India's performance has a lot to be desired as well, which is why i rate the team marginally behind England's.
Anyways, its 3:30 am, i need some sleep. Gnite.

Perfect logic C_C....so India haven't beaten NZ since 99 and lost to Australia in their last home series .......while England did NZ 3-0 and beat Champions Australia. So India struggle against weak teams (NZ - accordingly to you) and strong teams.

 

[greg]

Perfect logic C_C....so India haven't beaten NZ since 99 and lost to Australia in their last home series .......while England did NZ 3-0 and beat Champions Australia. So India struggle against weak teams (NZ - accordingly to you) and strong teams.

C_C seems to make little adjustment for natural improvement and decline in teams preferring to put everything in a historical context. When he talks about "England", "Australia" or "India" he focusses little on the team (best XI) at any moment in time and more on the group of players who make up the team over a period of time (within which he sees 6 or 7 'stalwarts' who will be ever present over the sample period). This has some validity in a historical context - one can talk about the England team under Nasser Hussein for example (based around Atherton, Hussein, Thorpe, Stewart, Gough and Caddick, perhaps others as well, as their stalwarts) which probably reached its peak during the home Pakistan series of 2001 or the present one under Michael Vaughan which is still probably still developing and yet to reach its peak (we hope). However this example alone shows how his sample period of 6-7 years should not be fixed and can probably be too long.

However because identifiable "teams" from different countries do not develop at the same time it is not really sensible to use this method to establish the relative playing strength of countries at any moment in time. Both India and Australia are past their peak and on the decline, whereas Vaughan's side have yet to reach their's. Where the India team of the first half of this decade (where they probably "only" lacked a pace attack to be considered extremely favourably) can be placed in a historical context is completely irrelevant to their current position in the game. That Vaughan's England are relatively unproven and cannot be properly placed in historical context is similarly irrelevant.

If I say that England will beat India this winter, then C_C will respond will a whole load of statistics why that opinion should be called into question, based around the (in his opinion)unproven nature of the England team compared with India. It does not however matter how many statistics based around past performance he throws about. At the end of the day, if England win they i will have been right.

 

[Scaly piscine]

In that case, India is pretty close to England ( which is what i said all along) : 1-1 in England and 1-0 in India. TYVM!
And you have the gall to comment about my conclusions!

England last played India 3 years ago, with a massively different team. Both of the meetings between India and NZ have been in the last 3 years. India's team has been basically the same in those series against NZ as it is now, except that 2-3 crap players are different and there are now a different 2-3 crap players - so they're the same teams effectively.

Now that's the last time I'll bother with you, because you're one of those internet trolls that think quoting irrelevant statistics, copy and pasting stuff from a dictionary and waffling incessantly somehow compensates for your utter lack of knowledge. I expect it'll be a few months before you finally get banned for throwing 'racist' about, but it'll happen eventually and CW will be a better place without you.

 

[Ikki]

Well I'm replying to this issue late as it seems it has gone wayward. Are the English overreacting? Yes. For all the hyperbole to justify England is better than Australia by beating them this year is ridiculous. So many factors played into England's advantage such as: dropped catches, no balls, weather, injury. England may have experienced the same but not to the same extent as Australia. Australia also had the worst umpiring I've seen for a while, with almost more than double incorrect dismissals than England had. The fact is England played their best game, while Australia was VERY UNDER PAR. Even at that Australia almost snatched the series. I think Flintoff getting man of the series instead fo Warne is the biggest outrage for cricket. Warne got 40 wickets with a tick under 250 runs and Flintoff fot 23 wickets with a tick over 400. For anyone to say 150 runs is more valuable than 17 wickets is laughable to say the least. If it wasn't for Warne the series would have been over much earlier. His performance compared to his teammates leaves a huge gap. Freddie contributed but for the same Token his teammates played much better than Warne's. Freddie the Best all-rounder? Maybe. The best player in the world? Nope. The Ashes victory should not be overemphasised. A statement I doubt I'll say in 14 months time: Congratulations to England.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well I'm replying to this issue late as it seems it has gone wayward. Are the English overreacting? Yes. For all the hyperbole to justify England is better than Australia by beating them this year is ridiculous. So many factors played into England's advantage such as: dropped catches, no balls, weather, injury. England may have experienced the same but not to the same extent as Australia.

England dropped more catches and bowled more no-balls. England's team is far younger so you'd expect less injuries.

 

[Ikki]

England dropped more catches and bowled more no-balls. England's team is far younger so you'd expect less injuries.

Fortunately for England the Australian batters didn't consistently take advantage of that. Whereas the no-balls of Australia handed you the 4th test. If the no-balls we're bowled properly that alone with other factors being constant would have most probably lead to an Aussie win. How many was it exactly? 42 I think.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

If this if that. What if half our side hadn't gotten injured, and what if Thorpe toured last Ashes down under?

I've a feeling we'd have still lost, but perhaps by a lesser margin. The point is stop whining about it, it was a great series, you're still #1 and you have a chance to avenge next time.

Oh, welcome to CW by the way

 

[Scaly piscine]

Fortunately for England the Australian batters didn't consistently take advantage of that.

Not fortunate for England, they just bowled better than Australia and made more chances.

 

[Ikki]

Thanks for the welcome mate. You're right lol you did win it and deserved it also. I am biased I guess, but more so than that I really dislike the overexaggeration. I think it's a spit in the face of the current Australian legends of the game. I'm just warning the poms. You do the same thing with Football, with Rooney and Owen and Becks, anyone who you can lay your hands on and now Flintoff. Just give it time.

 

[greg]

Anyway, very few people are saying that England are now the best side in the world, or if they are, they aren't saying that this series alone proves it. Many people suspect that they might be, but seeing as Australia may well be weaker in 14 months time and England may be stronger it is not something that can ever really be determined.

Regardless Australia are still the recognised #1. One series loss is not enough to change that

 

[Slow Love™]

Fact is, England may well BE the best side in the world - most of the ambiguity about this relates to the closeness of the result. If it had been an absolute pasting, it's likely that there wouldn't be such a resistance to the concept. And things can change fast, in both directions, for both sides.

Reading through some of the threads, there is an obvious confusion among some (mostly non-Englishmen) that pondering such a notion means you are implying that England are as dominant as Australia have been for around a ten-year period. Obviously, you would need to skip forward ten years to substantiate that and it would be a stupid comment to make.

India defeating Australia was a little different 'cause they couldn't win away (even against Zimbabwe) and Australia had a noticable weakness on spinning tracks. But I think this situation is a little different to that. (Which is not to say I necessarily believe that England are the numero uno team right now, but they're obviously not that far off being able to make the claim.)