***Official*** Pakistan in England

[marc71178]

This is such a lame line of reasoning that I won't even start. Or are you just trolling for trolling's sake?

No, merely pointing out that England dominated the First Test till the 5th day, and had they won that one, then Pakistan wouldn't have won the series.

 

[Dasa]

No, merely pointing out that England dominated the First Test till the 5th day, and had they won that one, then Pakistan wouldn't have won the series.

How can you say that? If England had won the first Test who is to say Pakistan wouldn't have come back and won the Second and Third Tests. Anything could have happened, you can't just take the one result on it's own and say if that had gone differently, everything else would have remained the same.

 

[Xuhaib]

was thinking the same myself....

anyway, why not have the cutoff point even closer to the present time, say only tests in 2006
1. Australia
2. Sri Lanka
3. England
4. Pakistan
5. India
6. South Africa
7. New Zealand
8. West Indies

or how about just the last 6 weeks....

Now again how can you put SL above Pakistan when Pakistan have beaten them at their own backyard

 

[Xuhaib]

What, the ones that only won the series against England because England had one shocking day in the 1st Test?

One more session at Faislabad and it would have been clean sweep for Pakistan.

 

[Armadillo]

No, merely pointing out that England dominated the First Test till the 5th day, and had they won that one, then Pakistan wouldn't have won the series.

But the point was that Pakistan outplayed England that day to the extent that it made up for previous days where England might have been on top.

England dominated the test, but they lost because Pakistan bowled well, that's that.

 

[silentstriker]

No, merely pointing out that England dominated the First Test till the 5th day, and had they won that one, then Pakistan wouldn't have won the series.

But they didn't win, and thats the point. That's like saying, "If India had won the test in Mumbai against England, they would have won the series." Well yea, but so what? Coming close doesn't count (Not that India were close).

 

[Scaly piscine]

But the point was that Pakistan outplayed England that day to the extent that it made up for previous days where England might have been on top.

England dominated the test, but they lost because Pakistan bowled well, that's that.

No, Pakistan won because they won the toss and bowled decently for one day and England crumbled (and Pakistan had a chucker who was allowed to take 5-79 in the match without any penalty to Pakistan). Pakistan were only still in the game going to the fifth day because of the advantage of batting first - a load of people will now tell me that EVERY single result is down to the winning team outplaying the losing team, but in reality we all know that's rubbish. Teams get advantages and Pakistan did just enough to make theirs count even tho they weren't the better team over that Test.

 

[Sanz]

No, Pakistan won because they won the toss and bowled decently for one day and England crumbled (and Pakistan had a chucker who was allowed to take 5-79 in the match without any penalty to Pakistan). Pakistan were only still in the game going to the fifth day because of the advantage of batting first - a load of people will now tell me that EVERY single result is down to the winning team outplaying the losing team, but in reality we all know that's rubbish. Teams get advantages and Pakistan did just enough to make theirs count even tho they weren't the better team over that Test.

Sour Grapes. So are you suggesting that Pakistan didn't outplay England and still won the test. You talk as if Pakistan batting first was some new thing and a big conspiracy against the English team.

Pakistan was the better team when it mattered and hence they won the test.

 

[silentstriker]

No, Pakistan won because they won the toss and bowled decently for one day and England crumbled (and Pakistan had a chucker who was allowed to take 5-79 in the match without any penalty to Pakistan). Pakistan were only still in the game going to the fifth day because of the advantage of batting first - a load of people will now tell me that EVERY single result is down to the winning team outplaying the losing team, but in reality we all know that's rubbish. Teams get advantages and Pakistan did just enough to make theirs count even tho they weren't the better team over that Test.

If they won, then they were the better team over that test.

 

[Xuhaib]

No, Pakistan won because they won the toss and bowled decently for one day and England crumbled (and Pakistan had a chucker who was allowed to take 5-79 in the match without any penalty to Pakistan). Pakistan were only still in the game going to the fifth day because of the advantage of batting first - a load of people will now tell me that EVERY single result is down to the winning team outplaying the losing team, but in reality we all know that's rubbish. Teams get advantages and Pakistan did just enough to make theirs count even tho they weren't the better team over that Test.

Pakistan conceded a lead of 144 runs which by and large nullified their advantage of winning the toss and that track was definatley not unplayble on the 5th day.

As for the chucker excuse its not like England have not benifitted from chuckers aswell you remember James Kurtley 2003 at Nottingham?

 

[Scaly piscine]

If they won, then they were the better team over that test.

See...

The best team does not always win/draw a given Test. To say there is no outside element like winning the toss, getting lucky with conditions or umpiring decisions etc. that would have an effect on the result of the game is completely ridiculous.

 

[Sanz]

The best team does not always win/draw a given Test.

That basically means win or lose , England are always the best team.

 

[Armadillo]

I think that is what he is trying to say.

 

[silentstriker]

See...

The best team does not always win/draw a given Test. To say there is no outside element like winning the toss, getting lucky with conditions or umpiring decisions etc. that would have an effect on the result of the game is completely ridiculous.

If they do not win/draw a given test, then they are not the best team. Anything else is a petty excuse.

The best team always win, because the team that won is automatically better than the team that lost (for the duration of the match, at least). When Bangladesh beat Australia in that ODI, Bangaldesh were the better team that day. It's that simple. England were the better team in Mumbai, and Pakistan were the better team when they played England in Pakistan. The best team always wins (unless you have match fixing).

 

[Scaly piscine]

If they do not win/draw a given test, then they are not the best team. Anything else is a petty excuse.

The best team always win, because the team that won is automatically better than the team that lost (for the duration of the match, at least). When Bangladesh beat Australia in that ODI, Bangaldesh were the better team that day. It's that simple. England were the better team in Mumbai, and Pakistan were the better team when they played England in Pakistan. The best team always wins (unless you have match fixing).

So I guess you're not bothered about how bad or biased an umpire is then, because it would have no effect on the match no matter whether they gave everyone out as soon as team A appealed and gave everything not out when team B appeal. It also doesn't matter if you win the toss, because that doesn't have any effect on the result either, so there's no point slating Ponting when he had his famous "we'll have a bowl, mate" moment.

 

[Sanz]

Scaly likes to practice his scrabble skills on a cricket website.

 

[Jono]

If you collapse on a pretty placid day 5 pitch (compared to various other day 5 sub-continental pitches) you don't deserve to win the test. England didn't deserve to win, and didn't. They were lucky not to lose the 2nd test and embarassingly lose 3-0 mind you, so I think England should thank themselves that didn't happen. England lost the test series because something lit a fire under Shoaib's ***, and whilst Inzy and Yousuf etc. obviously had an input, he was the difference.

 

[silentstriker]

so there's no point slating Ponting when he had his famous "we'll have a bowl, mate" moment.

Bad captaincy is part of the team. If you have a bad captain, that means your team overall is not as good as it can be. Field placings are another thing, one captain might be better at it and bad field placings can cost just as many wickets/runs as a bad umpire or the toss, but thats part of the game. If you suck at captaincy, then your team suffers and its not the better team.

So one team can have more talent than another, but if one of the captains is better by a bigger margin, then your overall team isn't as good. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[Fusion]

That basically means win or lose , England are always the best team.

 

[Swervy]

Now again how can you put SL above Pakistan when Pakistan have beaten them at their own backyard

and so it just goes to show how you cant base rankings on a short period of time...England couldnt beat Sri lanka, and yet Pakistan have completely folded against England...which would suggest Sri lanka were the better team ...we all know that kind of logic is pointless, because we know teams have to prove their worth over a fairly lengthy period of time, which IMO is about 18 months to 2 years.

Pakistan have done ok in the last 9 months, but it could actually be said that England losing in pakistan was merely a blip in a long line of highly successful series.