*Official* Pool A Discussion

[Anil]

England vs India: Who will win?

India: Batting is the main strength obviously. It can also become their biggest weakness and they will be facing an excellent pace attack. A lot depends on how the top 3 batsmen play. As far as bowling goes, going in with a lone spinner sounds good. The great AA might get a game atlast if Nehra is declared unfit. Let's see what havoc he can wreak on the Englishmen with both bat and ball.

England: Strength is its pace attack. Batting on paper atleast isn't as strong as India's, but they have good batsmen(especially ones who love Indian bowling) in Tresc and Vaughan, bolstered by Knight & Hussain and Stewart, Collingwood, White and Flintoff for rear-guard action. Let's see how the new sensation Anderson shapes up against the Indian batsmen.

Very, very difficult to pick a winner IMO. I just hope India can make it.

 

[Bazza]

Well we've all argued until we're blue in the face. Now there are just a few hours to go. I better be off to bed so I can get up on time to catch the start!!

*bursts with excitement*

 

[Ringua]

Nice to hear a typically un-biased view there Ringua :rolleyes:

Just because players play for less well known teams does not mean they are rubbish players. In fact JB Burger looks a fine young batsman. England's bowling nowhere near pathetic. Nambia's, against Zimbabwe, was.

Think before you post will you? "If there is no good reason for saying something, why say it?"

I never said that Namibia's batting was rubbish, just pointed out the fact that they weren't that good enough and your apprehensions that they would give India a hard time was rubbish!

If would be good if you start thinking for a change, one never knows you would end up saying something for a changer that will make some sense!

 

[Ringua]

Why is England being scrutinized for scoring 272 against Namibia and bowling out the the Namibians (bar a brilliant 85 from Burger) for less than 150?

Teams that should be scrutinized for underperforming are India who barely scratched 200 against Holland, Pakistan who struggled against the Namibian bowling and WI who didn't get anywhere near what they should have against Bangladesh.

India did fared poorly against Holland but none of their fans started painting Holland as a "threath" to stronger teams on the basis of their performance against India!

 

[Gotchya]

England vs India: Who will win?

India: Batting is the main strength obviously. It can also become their biggest weakness and they will be facing an excellent pace attack. A lot depends on how the top 3 batsmen play. As far as bowling goes, going in with a lone spinner sounds good. The great AA might get a game atlast if Nehra is declared unfit. Let's see what havoc he can wreak on the Englishmen with both bat and ball.

England: Strength is its pace attack. Batting on paper atleast isn't as strong as India's, but they have good batsmen(especially ones who love Indian bowling) in Tresc and Vaughan, bolstered by Knight & Hussain and Stewart, Collingwood, White and Flintoff for rear-guard action. Let's see how the new sensation Anderson shapes up against the Indian batsmen.

Very, very difficult to pick a winner IMO. I just hope India can make it.

I think that India will win it despite Englands good showing against Pakistan. I just have that feeling that England may not produce the same thing they did against Pakistan, becuase that erformance is being taken as a leadup to this clash. Perhaps I may be proved wrong, but going by history, Indian batsmen should rake up some runs. And then a good battle by the English strong batting lineup would be very interesting.

 

[krkode]

I think people undermine the Indian bowling attack too much. Actually, on paper, I think it's the Indians who look a better bowling team, although in reality, the English may be better.

Srinath averages 28 with 300+ wickets, Agarkar also averages 28 with 160 odd wickets, Khan averages 26 with almost a 100 wickets, Kumble averages 29 with more than 300, Harbhajan averages 29 with nearly 100 wickets too!
Let's count out Nehra due to his injury...

England's most prolific bowler has fewer wickets than India's least experienced bowler in the ODI game, and in terms of averages too, the Indian bowling looks pretty good - nothing up to the aussies' or Pakistanis' calibre, but not too shabby either.

 

[krkode]

When I wake up tomorrow morning, half the match will be over...oh boy, I can't wait

 

[warrioryohannan]

When I wake up tomorrow morning, half the match will be over...oh boy, I can't wait

Nor can i !

As for comparison between the bowling attack, i think England have one bowler in Anderson that gives England an edge over Indian bowling line up.
India obviously have the better batting line up, and overall is a better oneday team!

 

[krkode]

Well, Anderson is definitely a prodigous, inform, good new young bowler to the scene of international cricket, but form isn't all that plays into a big match, right?

Sure, he may be a good bowler, but I think the likes of Srinath are better than him considering Srinath's vast experience and skill. In short, If I had to pick Srinath or Anderson, I'd go with Srinath, but for tomorrow's match - maybe Anderson.

 

[krkode]

Nor can i !

hehe, nothing better than running up on the match half way through Gives you either a pleasant surprise or a very unpleasant surprise Imagine my glee when I wake up last Sunday morning and look at the Indian score as being 311 with Tendulkar and Ganguly with 100s No words describe it :P

 

[Choora]

hehe, nothing better than running up on the match half way through Gives you either a pleasant surprise or a very unpleasant surprise Imagine my glee when I wake up last Sunday morning and look at the Indian score as being 311 with Tendulkar and Ganguly with 100s No words describe it :P

Hmmm.... 311 with S's having tons... Could be possible if Sachin and Saurav bats like champions against a relatively better English attack, or England include Harmison into their lineup which would ensure a win for India

 

[Rik]

I never said that Namibia's batting was rubbish, just pointed out the fact that they weren't that good enough and your apprehensions that they would give India a hard time was rubbish!

If would be good if you start thinking for a change, one never knows you would end up saying something for a changer that will make some sense!

I wouldn't mind seeing you write some sense in return rather than just trying to slag me off all the time.

 

[Rik]

Hmmm.... 311 with S's having tons... Could be possible if Sachin and Saurav bats like champions against a relatively better English attack, or England include Harmison into their lineup which would ensure a win for India

I don't think England will include Harmison. In this World Cup they have left out Harmison and Irani which makes the reasons for playing them in the VB Series to give them some experiance, rather odd.

 

[marc71178]

India did fared poorly against Holland but none of their fans started painting Holland as a "threath" to stronger teams on the basis of their performance against India!

No, they reserved that for NZ!

And is this insinuating that English fans did that about Namibia, because I'd like to see where they did this!

 

[marc71178]

Hmmm.... 311 with S's having tons...

He was talking about in the past - I cannot see that happening today (touch wood)

 

[Ringua]

I wouldn't mind seeing you write some sense in return rather than just trying to slag me off all the time.

I'm least interested in slagging you off.Its unfortunate that you take any negative comments on English team (by me) as biased, its obvious from today's result that Indian team is a much better oneday side than England, though knowing you i won't be surprised if you would still negate this simple fact:rolleyes:

 

[Ringua]

No, they reserved that for NZ!

And is this insinuating that English fans did that about Namibia, because I'd like to see where they did this!

Great sir, for your kind information, New Zealand is a test playing team while Namibia are minnows, can you see the difference? And if someone said that NZ can be a threath after they defeated India then what was wrong in it? Didn't NZ defeated the fav's SA in SA??
And the last time i checked, Namibia were thrashed by India, oh perhaps you still are banking on Nam giving Ausses a hard time!

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm least interested in slagging you off.Its unfortunate that you take any negative comments on English team (by me) as biased, its obvious from today's result that Indian team is a much better oneday side than England, though knowing you i won't be surprised if you would still negate this simple fact:rolleyes:

I will. First of all, fair play to India - they won the game fair and square.

Now answer me this :

If England had won the toss, would India have still won?

Second question :

Are England a much better one-day side than Pakistan by the same logic?

Third question :

If Pakistan had won the toss, would they have beaten England?

As I have already said, I do not begrudge India winning, but get things into perspective before you spout (no bias intended).

 

[Ringua]

I will. First of all, fair play to India - they won the game fair and square.

Now answer me this :

If England had won the toss, would India have still won?

Second question :

Are England a much better one-day side than Pakistan by the same logic?

Third question :

If Pakistan had won the toss, would they have beaten England?

As I have already said, I do not begrudge India winning, but get things into perspective before you spout (no bias intended).

1, To be honest, its difficult to say that whether india would have won the match had they batted second.I DO firmly belief that conditions differs dramatically in the second innings under light.I would say that had been it a day match, India would have won it whether they would have batted first or second BUT in the D/N match India would probably had lost to England had they batted second!

2, As for the comparison between Eng and Pak, Pak have been a stronger oneday team over the years, but now they are in trouble and it wasn't just limited to one match.Their main batsmen are out of form, they haven't found any good young batsmen and as Imran Khan said they simply do't have the batsmen to win the WC.So as things stand, they are a weaker oneday team than England.

3, Till date Pakistan haven't got their act right, they were able to post just 250 against Holland, keeping in mind their batsmen's performance Pakistan might still had lost the match to England even while batting first.

 

[warrioryohannan]

Agreed to most of your observation except i thing Pakistan would have won the match ahd they batted first against England. I agree with you on their batting problems, but even if had their batsmen had scored just 150, their bowlers would had defended such a small target under lights.

This D/N games shouldn't be a part of WC!