ICC Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka

[vandemataram]

What a dissapointment, i never really expected England side to do wonders BUT atleast they could have made amatch out of it.The Way the English bowler bowled , Indian batters would even have chased a target of 350!

This English side is a laughing stock, Hoggard/Cork/Caddick..LOL, get rid of those half skilled English Cricketers

 

[TendulkarMark2]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
I don't like England's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th bowlers on that performance.



quote]


If one can ever call them bowlers!

Mark2 destroyed each one of them, indeed, England was/is no match to India.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Academic really, but a full strength England side would've made the match a lot closer.

The first part of your statement is true, ie this discussion is at best academic.
Fact: England with their best available side were soundly thrashed by India. Fact: There was a lot of daylight between the teams yesterday especially in batting. Fact: England's best batsman(Tresc) and skipper(also in good form) failed.
Fact: All the English bowlers were utterly helpless and were like lambs led to the slaughter by Sehwag and Ganguly. Give me a good reason to believe that Gough and Flintoff would have made a difference other than the fact that you want to believe it.

Gough would've made a difference just because of his personality - the team wouldn't have been allowed to drop their shoulder if he'd been around.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by aussie_beater

Even if they weren't needed in this game, had India gone into the game without them, they would have been nowhere near as confident as they were knowing they had them to fall back on. Academic really, but a full strength England side would've made the match a lot closer.

Academic discussions on sports are for dissilusioned fans at best....like if we had a Bradman, we could have beaten the heck out of the Aussies on their own turf.

What if I say that India would have beaten England all the same even if Tendulkar wasn't born or Kaif was a soccer player.....see the point.These academic discussions can lead you anywhere and so its better to look at what happened and maybe draw conclusions from it rather going on a fantasy tour.

Sorry, but what relevance is that post - my post was saying that players who actually play for England were absent, but the result will remain the same and we'll never know what might have been.

You start talking about scenarios which are just ridiculous to rubbish my point?

 

[Gotchya]

Gough would've made a difference just because of his personality - the team wouldn't have been allowed to drop their shoulder if he'd been around.

Oh..come off it. India batted superbly to down England. I dont see things going differently if Gough had played or Flintoff had played. They too would have struggled against India.The Indians feel more at home in accustomed conditions, Gough and Flintoff would have struggled in these conditions anyway. Exactly as Hoggard and Caddick did.

 

[Gotchya]

Pool One
-------------
Australia
New Zealand
Bangladesh
-------------

Pool Two
-------------
India
England
Zimbabwe
-------------

Pool Three
-------------
South Africa
West Indies
Kenya
-------------

Pool Four
-------------
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Holland
-------------



All groups saw the team at the top go through except in group four

So now the Semi finals are between :

South Africa and India

Australia and Sri Lanka


I think we will see a marathon Australia Vs South Africa, but the Australia/Sri Lanka match is a bit dodgy, after India's performance yesterday i wouldn't discount them either.

An Australia/India would be a treat, SA always look to me to be a boring bunch of cricketers.

 

[aussie_beater]

Sorry, but what relevance is that post - my post was saying that players who actually play for England were absent, but the result will remain the same and we'll never know what might have been.

You start talking about scenarios which are just ridiculous to rubbish my point?

That's the point....."what might have been" is better left to providence.Let's talk about what happened.

Why does your post make more sense then mine ? ....I said that India would have thrashed England even if Tendulkar and Kaif weren't there.Can you dispute that any more then I can dispute your claim that those England players would have made a difference.

 

[luckyeddie]

That's the point....."what might have been" is better left to providence.Let's talk about what happened.

Totally agree, Aussie_Beater.

Little constructive to say about England, little detrimental to say about India.

We were whupped in all aspects of the game except fielding (and both sides were pretty grim at that - I think that if you could combine Harbhajan and Caddick, you would get a fielder with all the prowess and ability of Devon Malcolm).

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by aussie_beater

Sorry, but what relevance is that post - my post was saying that players who actually play for England were absent, but the result will remain the same and we'll never know what might have been.

You start talking about scenarios which are just ridiculous to rubbish my point?

That's the point....."what might have been" is better left to providence.Let's talk about what happened.

Why does your post make more sense then mine ? ....I said that India would have thrashed England even if Tendulkar and Kaif weren't there.Can you dispute that any more then I can dispute your claim that those England players would have made a difference.

My initial point was that this match can't be read into too much as to how the future confrontations between the two sides will go, with India 100% and England missing players.

Not making excuses... looking on the bright side - I've been doing that all summe at junior level

 

[Blewy]

Sri Lanka have been quoted at $5 to win the t'ment behind Australia and SA, and personally i think if they beat Australia they will win it, so today im off the TAB and im laying some cash down....

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by aussie_beater

Sorry, but what relevance is that post - my post was saying that players who actually play for England were absent, but the result will remain the same and we'll never know what might have been.

You start talking about scenarios which are just ridiculous to rubbish my point?

That's the point....."what might have been" is better left to providence.Let's talk about what happened.

Why does your post make more sense then mine ? ....I said that India would have thrashed England even if Tendulkar and Kaif weren't there.Can you dispute that any more then I can dispute your claim that those England players would have made a difference.

You said what if Kaif hadn't been born or Tendulkar had been a football player (or something similar)

In that case they wouldn't be missing those 2 players, as they would never have had those 2 players - so there would be 2 other established players in their places.

My point is that England were missing established players who would definitely have played if fit.

 

[marc71178]

Oh..come off it. India batted superbly to down England. I dont see things going differently if Gough had played or Flintoff had played. They too would have struggled against India.The Indians feel more at home in accustomed conditions, Gough and Flintoff would have struggled in these conditions anyway. Exactly as Hoggard and Caddick did.

Gough is the one bowler England truly miss - check the results without him recently and they don't make pretty reading. I do feel he would have made a difference, maybe not enough to win the match, but it would certainly have been closer, as he inspires others onto better things.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by marc71178
You said what if Kaif hadn't been born or Tendulkar had been a football player (or something similar)

In that case they wouldn't be missing those 2 players, as they would never have had those 2 players - so there would be 2 other established players in their places.

My point is that England were missing established players who would definitely have played if fit.

That was kind of a figurative speech to illustrate the point that with no contribution from Kaif or Tendulkar, India could hammer England and so their presence was practically inconsequential. That's a fact and what you are saying is all conjectures and has no meaning whatsoever.

 

[mayadevi]

Originally posted by marc71178
Gough is the one bowler England truly miss - check the results without him recently and they don't make pretty reading. I do feel he would have made a difference, maybe not enough to win the match, but it would certainly have been closer, as he inspires others onto better things.

Gough might have bowled some tidy overs, taken a couple of wkts BUT India would still have won the match easily.One bowler alone cannot make all the difference, face the fact, India was just too good for the brits:P

 

[Gotchya]

India played well England played badly. India won the match.

It was just another One dayer !!!!
One dayers are not anything other than a One DAY the team on the day takes the cake.
forget the whole thing now.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by mayadevi

Originally posted by marc71178
Gough is the one bowler England truly miss - check the results without him recently and they don't make pretty reading. I do feel he would have made a difference, maybe not enough to win the match, but it would certainly have been closer, as he inspires others onto better things.

Gough might have bowled some tidy overs, taken a couple of wkts BUT India would still have won the match easily.One bowler alone cannot make all the difference, face the fact, India was just too good for the brits:P

WOuld they have done. Say Gough bowls 5 overs 2-15. Both century makers gone, and India could be starring down the barrel. We'll never know, but it would have been closer without a doubt.

 

[marc71178]

That was kind of a figurative speech to illustrate the point that with no contribution from Kaif or Tendulkar, India could hammer England and so their presence was practically inconsequential. That's a fact and what you are saying is all conjectures and has no meaning whatsoever.

I was saying that had they been injured, and there were 2 non-regular players in the Top Order, I'm not so sure the Indians would have gone about the target with as much confidence.

 

[mayadevi]

[quote
Say Gough bowls 5 overs 2-15. Both century makers gone, and India could be starring down the barrel. We'll never know, but it would have been closer without a doubt. [/quote]

Even if that had happened, the rest of the Indian batters in Laxman,Dravid, Tendulkar,Yuvraj and Kaif would have taken India to victory.Keep in mind three things,
Kaif/Tend/Yuvraj have been responsible for most recent victories for India.

--They were playing on a batting friendly pitch.

--And lastly, all they had to do was to negotiate Gough's remaining 5 overs, Facing the rest of the English boweler was/is a piece of cake.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but Gough does actually seem to improve the performance of the other bowlers around him (Caddick for one really likes to outdo him, so strives that little harder)

Also, losing 2 early wickets when faced with a reasonably stiff target, you cannot say what India would have done. I can't see they would cruise to victory, they may have won, but by no means would it have been by 8 wickets with 10 overs to spare, more likely 3 or 4 wickets in the last over.

 

[mayadevi]

Originally posted by marc71178
Yes, but Gough does actually seem to improve the performance of the other bowlers around him (Caddick for one really likes to outdo him, so strives that little harder)

Also, losing 2 early wickets when faced with a reasonably stiff target, you cannot say what India would have done. I can't see they would cruise to victory, they may have won, but by no means would it have been by 8 wickets with 10 overs to spare, more likely 3 or 4 wickets in the last over.

I agree with u over that, had they lost 2 early wkts the match would have been closer.Actually right now India is playing superb cricket, thats one of the reason why i think that they would have still won it but after a tuff fight!