Boycott's bombshell

[Tom Halsey]

England are IMO the 2nd best ODI team in the World, we got Super Subbed against Australia in the Chellenge but in the Triangular tournament us and Australia were equal. We didn't have many of our best players against SA, hence we got mauled, same in last summer's Triangular tournament. Other than that, our results have been good.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Boycs eh, mad as a lorry. I couldn't give a monkeys aunt about ODI's. Obviously it would be nice to do well in the World Cup, but given the choice I'd take a Test series win in India over a WC victory any day. And yes I think England would lose a ODI series against the Ceylonese. And SA. And Pak, Ind, NZ, WI...

With our side against SA we fielded (Kabir Ali, etc...) yes we would lose to almost any team. With the side we fielded in the ODIs this summer, we wouldn't.

 

[luckyeddie]

Arjun you totally misread my post, maybe I should have phrased it better but none the less if you read the REST of my post it was clear what my contention was.

Boycott is calling England ODI world champions, yet they are clearly are far from that and are not as good as SL.

I think you'll find that Boycott, like most English people, doesn't give a toss about ODI's because, basically:

a) it's not proper cricket
or
b) we're rubbish at it.

(my vote goes for 'both')

He's just trying to say that we're 'champions' at cricket (because we beat the undisputed world champions in a test series) in much the same way as the Jocks claimed to be world champions at footy in 1967 because they had just beaten England in a one-off.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think you'll find that Boycott, like most English people, doesn't give a toss about ODI's because, basically:

a) it's not proper cricket
or
b) we're rubbish at it.

(my vote goes for 'both')

He's just trying to say that we're 'champions' at cricket (because we beat the undisputed world champions in a test series) in much the same way as the Jocks claimed to be world champions at footy in 1967 because they had just beaten England in a one-off.

There's a big difference between beating Australia in probably the most important Test series for both countries and the Scottish win.

 

[luckyeddie]

There's a big difference between beating Australia in probably the most important Test series for both countries and the Scottish win.

Jim Baxter doesn't play cricket?

 

[Jono]

What batting or bowling talent have you unearthed then? You're still picking the likes of Mills and McMillan and Cairns is being pensioned off - where's the improvement going to come from?

You know, about 12 months ago I too would have been laughing at Mills being in the team. But its about time people realised that he has improved. He had Hayden so many times when NZ toured Aus last year, but for some reason the umpires weren't giving the LBW decisions. Luckily today and in the Ashes they were being given. Mills knew he had to get the ball to swing back into Hayden, and he did. Not to mention how well Mills has bowled against South Africa in the past 3 ODIs. He's been the best bowler from both sides.

 

[Jono]

I think you'll find that Boycott, like most English people, doesn't give a toss about ODI's because, basically:

a) it's not proper cricket
or
b) we're rubbish at it.

(my vote goes for 'both')

He's just trying to say that we're 'champions' at cricket (because we beat the undisputed world champions in a test series) in much the same way as the Jocks claimed to be world champions at footy in 1967 because they had just beaten England in a one-off.

LE you don't have to spell it out, I know where Boycott is coming from but its stupid. He was talking about Dhoni, in which form did Dhoni score his 183 in? ODIs. the guy hasn't even played a test yet. But he's talking about England being world champions when 1) Dhoni hasn't had the opportunity to face them 2) They're not that good yet.

Plus, I'd like to see Kabir Ali or Wharf bowling to Dhoni (I know they're no longer in the team), I reckon he'd give them a good pounding like he's done to two of the best ODI bowlers going around right now in Vaas and Murali. If he can hit them, he's got the talent to be a good ODI batsman.

Plus Dhoni once again has just guided India to another win, and this time he didn't explode with sixes all over the place (until the last 2 balls, he obviously likes hitting a six to win ) but he played sensibly.

 

[Jono]

England are IMO the 2nd best ODI team in the World, we got Super Subbed against Australia in the Chellenge but in the Triangular tournament us and Australia were equal. We didn't have many of our best players against SA, hence we got mauled, same in last summer's Triangular tournament. Other than that, our results have been good.

What has England done of note in ODIs other than beat Australia (and be competitive in the losses) in a few games? If beating Australia/being competitive is what it takes to be #2 in the world, then until recently India have been the 2nd best side in test matches, but we know that's not the case right? Because you have to be competitive against all teams.

Watch, if England lose the ODIs in Pakistan its because they mean "Bugger all" but if they win them then they're the 2nd best team in the world.

 

[Top_Cat]

Must say that when he's not trying so damn hard to be controversial or talking about himself and his career, Boyc's comments are usually quite good. I always thought he was this Yorkie buffoon with a foony accent and one heck of a cricketing grandmother but when he talks captaincy or batting technique, his thoughts are usually of great value. Really analytical stuff. Shame it's only 5% of the time he's like that.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You know, about 12 months ago I too would have been laughing at Mills being in the team. But its about time people realised that he has improved. He had Hayden so many times when NZ toured Aus last year, but for some reason the umpires weren't giving the LBW decisions. Luckily today and in the Ashes they were being given. Mills knew he had to get the ball to swing back into Hayden, and he did. Not to mention how well Mills has bowled against South Africa in the past 3 ODIs. He's been the best bowler from both sides.

He still averages over 30 in ODIs for this year, in 2004 and in 2003. He's not very economical either.

 

[simmy]

England are second only to Aus... in both ODIs and Tests... despite what the rankings say.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The suggestion that England is the second best ODI side in the world is ridiculous. It is basically equivalent to suggesting that India were the second best test team in the world because they almost beat Australia in 2003.

England pushed Australia in the home ODIs and eventually lost 3-2... and they drew the triangular part of the series 1-1. This is in a series where Australia also lost to Bangladesh. Fair enough, this is evidence of improvement, but Sri Lanka achieved the exact same result against Australia last year, and more importantly teams like Sri Lanka, South Africa and New Zealand have showed consistently superior ODI form to England against all opposition, in all countries and over a lengthy period. Yes, England are on the rise in the format, but to suggest they are world champions or even that they have any reasonable sort of claim to be second in the world is ludicrous until they put the results on the board. They can start by winning the ODI series in Pakistan.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The suggestion that England is the second best ODI side in the world is ridiculous. It is basically equivalent to suggesting that India were the second best test team in the world because they almost beat Australia in 2003.

England pushed Australia in the home ODIs and eventually lost 3-2... and they drew the triangular part of the series 1-1.

They tied in the final - I think Australia have won every ODI final they've been in since late 1999 (off the top of my head and doesn't include rainouts, someone else can look it up). That was the main thing. The rest were just insignificant skirmishes.

 

[luckyeddie]

LE you don't have to spell it out

You're joking, I hope.

There are some on Cricket Web who are so pedantic that they feel almost duty-bound to pounce on even the most trivial mistake in order to make the maximum of mileage out of it and score points.

(Looks in mirror) : Oh, wait.

I bet someone's going to pick you up on this:

But he's talking about England being world champions when 1) Dhoni hasn't had the opportunity to face them 2) They're not that good yet

A new qualification or yardstick against which to measure England's success has just emerged. Doesn't matter about pounding the West Indies at home or away, winning in South Africa or belting the Aussies.

They haven't faced Dhoni yet!

 

[Jono]

Umm no LE, that's who Boycott was referring to in his comment. Dhoni, and how he hasn't faced Australia or England yet.

Nice try though. The whole bolding thing and all, nice attempt to once again denigrate the Indian fan who wants to defend Dhoni.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'll call England the best side in the world when the beat Australia in Australia.

 

[luckyeddie]

Umm no LE, that's who Boycott was referring to in his comment. Dhoni, and how he hasn't faced Australia or England yet.

Nice try though. The whole bolding thing and all, nice attempt to once again denigrate the Indian fan who wants to defend Dhoni.

You know what? I had absolutely no idea that you Indian - I honestly thought that you were an Aussie (I never made the connection with your avatar).

I'll make my future attempts at humour at your expense more sophisticated in that case.

On a serious side, I'm not attempting to denigrate you, Dhoni or your opinions of Dhoni. Why do you think that I am?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

They tied in the final - I think Australia have won every ODI final they've been in since late 1999 (off the top of my head and doesn't include rainouts, someone else can look it up). That was the main thing. The rest were just insignificant skirmishes.

Fine, if you prefer, they tied with Australia, in England. Ignore everything else, and they tied.

Even taking that into account, that doesn't in and of itself make England the second best team in the world, any more than India's draw in 2003 did. If England perform in ODIs against the other mid-table teams like Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa, or at least some of them, then they can claim second position. As it is, England has drawn and lost two series against Australia, and previously been belted by South Africa and generally been an average ODI team.

 

[simmy]

The suggestion that England is the second best ODI side in the world is ridiculous. It is basically equivalent to suggesting that India were the second best test team in the world because they almost beat Australia in 2003.

England pushed Australia in the home ODIs and eventually lost 3-2... and they drew the triangular part of the series 1-1. This is in a series where Australia also lost to Bangladesh. Fair enough, this is evidence of improvement, but Sri Lanka achieved the exact same result against Australia last year, and more importantly teams like Sri Lanka, South Africa and New Zealand have showed consistently superior ODI form to England against all opposition, in all countries and over a lengthy period. Yes, England are on the rise in the format, but to suggest they are world champions or even that they have any reasonable sort of claim to be second in the world is ludicrous until they put the results on the board. They can start by winning the ODI series in Pakistan.

They also got to the final of the ICC Champions Trophy beating Australia on the way.

I guess we'll know in 14 months.

 

[Jono]

You know what? I had absolutely no idea that you Indian - I honestly thought that you were an Aussie (I never made the connection with your avatar).

I'll make my future attempts at humour at your expense more sophisticated in that case.

On a serious side, I'm not attempting to denigrate you, Dhoni or your opinions of Dhoni. Why do you think that I am?

Lol, I guess you never read any of my posts in the Ashes thread where I was supporting England I am Australian though, but of Indian descent. Born and bread here, just support the Indian cricket team.

Regarding the serious side, I think you sometimes (and a few other posters) take the comments of 2 or 3 troll Indian posters, and use them to justify having pot shots of the player that they proclaim to be legends i.e Dhoni and in previous cases Pathan. Hence these trolls are used as stereotypes for all Indian posters, which is quite unfair. For example, my Dhoni comment was quite clearly in direct relation to Boycott's statement that he doesn't rate Dhoni, and refuses to rate him until he faces Australia or England. That was what my post was about, that he has faced two brilliant ODI bowlers (Murali and Vaas) and played them very well, and so there IS REASON to rate him, or at the least acknowledge he's promising. Boycott however, using the fact that Dhoni hasn't scored against England and Australia against him (despite not having the opportunity to face either team, plus England aren't that good yet anyway) annoyed me. That's why I mentioned Dhoni. However you quoting my comments about Dhoni as if I am using him as a yardstick for a good ODI team was wrong, and an example of assuming that I am thinking he's the next Gilchrist or whatever.