England can beat India "every day of week": Gough

[honestbharani]

Tremlett/ Broad, Anderson, Finn/ Bresnan and Swann are better than their Indian counterparts in most conditions, if not all tbh. Would say Harbhajan is slightly better or equal to Swann on those decks but really, Sharma and Sreesanth are more often ******** than decent, and I say that as someone who thought Sharma would be the next big thing a couple of years back. He's been woeful in tests for the most part. Needs the biggest arse kicking ever.

And a haircut.



And a haircut.

Edit: that's right, two haircuts.

lol Burge.. but the point is, in Indian conditions only one of the two will be playing.. And the other, however rank he may be, will still likely be a good bet for the conditions in India than any Bresnan or Finn.. Which is my point. But yeah, will be a great series if it were to happen, either in India or in England.

 

[Jarquis]

obviously forgetting that it took a "wrong" decision for us to be in that place and away from an easier 2 wicket win...

Been done to the death already

 

[Jarquis]

illegitimately based on what? Your stupid as **** whining? Rules state you are only out when the umpires give you out... What the heck is illegitimate about that?

Check the LBW law, watch the delivery. Get back to me.

 

[Prince EWS]

lol Burge.. but the point is, in Indian conditions only one of the two will be playing.. And the other, however rank he may be, will still likely be a good bet for the conditions in India than any Bresnan or Finn.. Which is my point. But yeah, will be a great series if it were to happen, either in India or in England.

Well, Bresnan and Finn aren't in England's first choice lineup tbh.

 

[honestbharani]

Check the LBW law, watch the delivery. Get back to me.

check the laws of cricket, take off your rose tinted glasses and get back to me..

 

[honestbharani]

Well, Bresnan and Finn aren't in England's first choice lineup tbh.

yeah, I would assume Monty would be in the scheme of things if they come to India and they can afford to juz play Anderson and Tremlett/Broad with Colly as back up.. But still think they would rather pick all 3 and leave out Monty...


BTW, what I meant was that even Broad or Tremlett may not be the best bets in our conditions..

 

[Jarquis]

Try the sims, Marcuss.. For once you "might" just get the results you like to see..



Gotta say, I apologize if I am overly aggressive in my posting here, but I have often said I am a "massive" England fan now in cricket esp. because of some of the absolute gun posters from England here on CW.. And I see none of them seem to have posted since the first page.. And Marcuss is enough to single handedly have me almost alter my love for this current English side.



But still Flower/Strauss/KP/Swanneh > all..

Oh shut the **** up and sims and statistics, if you think what this whole discussion is about then turn off the computer and go pick up a book and learn to read. Daft ****.

Look, if you think the rankings are the best thing to decide between 2 teams if they were to play a match right now, then good for you but it's stupid and I won't agree.

 

[Prince EWS]

yeah, I would assume Monty would be in the scheme of things if they come to India and they can afford to juz play Anderson and Tremlett/Broad with Colly as back up.. But still think they would rather pick all 3 and leave out Monty...

I don't see what Monty has to do with anything; they still wouldn't play Finn or Bresnan.
Anderson, Tremlett, Broad and Swann is their attack.

BTW, what I meant was that even Broad or Tremlett may not be the best bets in our conditions..

Well, mentioning Broad or Tremlett makes more sense. I completely disagree that they wouldn't be better than Sreesanth or Sharma in India though. I'd still tip India to beat England in India; don't get me wrong - but that'd be in spite of their second opening bowler, not because of it.

 

[Jarquis]

Waiting to see your boys perform without Anderson first... I think it is easy to dismiss how crucial "the top" bowler is.. We may have gone equally well with Munaf and Agarkar instead of Ishant and Sree here.. The point is that the numero uno bowler is the one who makes the difference.

So you mean you want to see how we do without Swann?

Didn't know Tremlett, Bresnan and Finn were part of the squad in 2009...


And firstly, I meant to say how EACH of them progressed, which is important considering AT LEAST one will play as the second bowler..

They weren't, which says something for our strength and depth that we can churn out new bowling attacks on an annual basis.

Really really do not think the attack is special minus Anderson and Swann.. And the same would work for BOTH India and RSA bowling attacks.. As I said, we need to wait and see if these performances by Bresnan, Broad, Finn etc are really their usual or just their peaks...

A bowling attack gets worse when you take away its two best bowlers. There's a revelation if there ever was one.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't see what Monty has to do with anything; they still wouldn't play Finn or Bresnan.
Anderson, Tremlett, Broad and Swann is their attack.




Well, mentioning Broad or Tremlett makes more sense. I completely disagree that they wouldn't be better than Sreesanth or Sharma in India though. I'd still tip India to beat England in India; don't get me wrong - but that'd be in spite of their second opening bowler, not because of it.

lol.. I am not comparing them to Sree and Ishanth though.. I mean, if we are assuming the series will be in India, only one of Ishanth or Sree would play if everyone is fit and available.. So I am basically comparing Anderson and Tremlett to one of Sree/Ishant and Ojha.. And with that balance, I think there is a very good chance that they will only be that effective..


BTW, is Tremlett good with reverse swing like the rest of the English bowlers seem to be?

 

[Prince EWS]

So I am basically comparing Anderson and Tremlett to one of Sree/Ishant and Ojha

I'm going to assume you mean Broad and not Anderson.. but even given that I'd certainly rather have that English pair than the India pair in any conditions.

They may not be more effective in the series, but that's because India's batting is better than England's. The difference in batting would be quite large in India; that's why I'd back India to win. I reckon India would swap Sree/Ishant and Ojha for Broad and Tremlett in a heartbeat though.

 

[honestbharani]

So you mean you want to see how we do without Swann?

They weren't, which says something for our strength and depth that we can churn out new bowling attacks on an annual basis.

A bowling attack gets worse when you take away its two best bowlers. There's a revelation if there ever was one.

lol @ out of context.. GF was saying that England will still be better as a bowling unit if you took Anderson and Swann compared to an Indian bowling unit without Zak and Bhajji... I was just telling him I don't agree with that and I think both attacks would be equally good/bad if that happens, esp. in Indian conditions.

 

[Jarquis]

But why is it not necessary to be discussed? AFAIC, you need to be 9 down to HAVE the chance of being bowled out when all your players are fit to bat...


Is it not necessary to be discussed as you would have been proved wrong? :

The discussion wasn't about anything that had preceded that though. Both Australia and South Africa had their opposition 9 down - correct. Both Australia and South Africa had the opportunity to win the match - correct. South Africa couldn't bowl us out - correct. Australia were denied a legitimate wicket that would've won them the match - correct.

jeez.. and you call others' posts stupid???????



Spending time in the mirror than reading posts if everything appears to be stupid to you these days..



And Ishant was not likely to be dismissed "Mr.stats is all"... He was not for about 3 hours till then, why the hell is he suddenly liable to get out next ball???????


But wait, I know the answer.. it suits your non-existent point.. Kudos..

You can not categorically say with certainty that Ishant would not have got out next ball. There's no way of being absolutely sure.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm going to assume you mean Broad and not Anderson.. but even given that I'd certainly rather have that English pair than the India pair in any conditions.

They may not be more effective in the series, but that's because India's batting is better than England's. The difference in batting would be quite large in India; that's why I'd back India to win. I reckon India would swap Sree/Ishant and Ojha for Broad and Tremlett in a heartbeat though.

Would give you the first, not sure we would give up on Ojha that easily though, even though I really don't rate him much as a wicket taking bowler in tests...


And yeah I meant Broad in there.. Anderson and Zak are the ones who should be compared if we are doing this like for like.. sorry.

 

[Prince EWS]

The discussion wasn't about anything that had preceded that though. Both Australia and South Africa had their opposition 9 down - correct. Both Australia and South Africa had the opportunity to win the match - correct. South Africa couldn't bowl us out - correct. Australia were denied a legitimate wicket that would've won them the match - correct.


You can not categorically say with certainty that Ishant would not have got out next ball. There's no way of being absolutely sure.

Marcuss, please stop talking about this. It was a dire debate the first time (deliberately designed to side-track you originally, IMO) and thankfully it died down until CricketWeb's Zakabump showed up; let it go.

 

[Jarquis]

Hmmm 3 bad decisions in close succession.. I will pick and choose the ONLY one that can back up my non-existent point and help me clutch that straw even tighter.. "correct" indeed..

Or I'll pick the only one that I can say with any certainty what would've happened had it been a correct decision.
Or the only one that happened when India were 9 down - the scenario we were comparing. ****head.

 

[honestbharani]

The discussion wasn't about anything that had preceded that though. Both Australia and South Africa had their opposition 9 down - correct. Both Australia and South Africa had the opportunity to win the match - correct. South Africa couldn't bowl us out - correct. Australia were denied a legitimate wicket that would've won them the match - correct.


You can not categorically say with certainty that Ishant would not have got out next ball. There's no way of being absolutely sure.

Mate.. I was in a pretty bad mood in the morning when I posted that. I definitely disagree with most of your views but I need not have put them in that manner.. apologies for that..



I think it would just be easier if we agreed to disagreed. My position is that a series between England and India right now would be a reasonably close one wherever it is held, with India having the edge in Indian conditions and England having the edge in English conditions.. End of. Every other word we are saying here in this thread is mere speculation and beyond a point, none of us are gonna be proved right or whatever..

 

[honestbharani]

Marcuss, please stop talking about this. It was a dire debate the first time (deliberately designed to side-track you originally, IMO) and thankfully it died down until CricketWeb's Zakabump showed up; let it go.

yeah, God forbid I reply to posts which are obviously incorrect in my view..

 

[honestbharani]

Or I'll pick the only one that I can say with any certainty what would've happened had it been a correct decision.
Or the only one that happened when India were 9 down - the scenario we were comparing. ****head.

lol.. takes one to know one situation, huh?

 

[honestbharani]

Or I'll pick the only one that I can say with any certainty what would've happened had it been a correct decision.
Or the only one that happened when India were 9 down - the scenario we were comparing. ****head.

The situation "you" are comparing.. It is basically stupid to just assume everything that went on before a certain situation doesn't matter and then go on a bloody hypothetical tangent that Australia would have won "had" this or that happened... The decision was made and it was not one you wanted... The cricket rules state that the umpire decides what is out and what is not out.. Not Marcuss..