Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
If I remember correctly, Saeed Anwars 190 odd was against a team which is barely above club standard.....:rolleyes:
IndiaMr Mxyzptlk said:If I remember correctly, Saeed Anwars 190 odd was against a team which is barely above club standard.....:rolleyes:
But a greater joke is that none other than Ajit Agarkar scored a chanceless hundred against England at their own back yardRik said:India
and Jayasuria scored that 189 against...
INDIA!!!
A chanceless century when the team was already doomed to defeat, the bowlers weren't needing to try 100% and there absolutely no pressure - wow!Choora said:But a greater joke is that none other than Ajit Agarkar scored a chanceless hundred against England at their own back yard
No mate, that was one (admittedly rather flukey) 100 scored when the pressure was off. The real joke is that India have had 2 scores of 180+ scored against them when the pressure was on!Choora said:But a greater joke is that none other than Ajit Agarkar scored a chanceless hundred against England at their own back yard
Yes, it's me, Rik.full_length said:ha look who's talking.
Choora mentioned AA's innings as he has a history of doingHow did this arguement come up in the first place?
Ok, maybe I exaggerated it a bit but 180+ is a huge score and would have to contain a lot of boundaries. And where do boundaries come from? That's right...good shots and poor bowling.When people were discussing Bangladesh's and Kenya's attacks, you chaps came up with Jayasurya's and Anwar's knocks against India to say Indian attack is as good as a club side's :rolleyes:
No because you seem to forget I mentioned that sometimes you come across some guy who just plays an innings in which you just can't get him out. England won the game anyway, which is something you can't seem to accept.I just used your own arguement. If what you said is true, then England's attack is truly substandard isnt it? Afterall Duckarkar as some call him hit a century in England against England? And in a test match?
If two of the best ODI players of the last decade scoring big knocks against us means we are as good as a club side, England should give up cricket.
Have you suddenly turned into Navjot Sidhu?Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Because it was chancy but he pulled it off. A century is a fine achivement and well done to him for scoring it, but the constant mentioning of it as a superb innings that made fun of England is not only pure rubbish, it's also taking the gloss off the fact that he managed the feat.And fair play to Agarkar? Then why use the arguement that the knock was chancy in the first place?
:rolleyes:
No it means that India's batting was slightly better whilst England's bowling was slightly better. India's bowlers suffered a hammering by Vaughan, Dravid kept out some quite impressive bowling in the last few tests to score a very impressive 100 and 200. Then there is Tendulkar's 193 which helped India win at Leeds. So overall England's bowling was slightly better than India's but India's batting was slightly better than England's, as befits a drawn series.Neck and neck but slightly ahead on bowling front.. Sure. It's like figuring out which hippopotamus is thinner as far as that bowling in that series
is concerned!
No mate, the fact that England lost 1-0 in India is not a fair result of how the team played. Any team missing their best batsman and wicketkeeper and bowler is going to struggle. The fact that England played out of their skins and gave India a hard time in the last 2 tests with a rookie keeper, pace attack and 2nd spinner just shows that 1-0 was not a true result. The score of 1-1 in England was fair, but other than that victory at Leeds I can't really say I noticed India being in front. In fact the drawn games were exactly that, a stalemate in which neither team could get the better of the other. Just think what would have happened if Vaughan was in the form he is now, when he was in India...we didn't even have his runs to help us then...England were a better side till Indian batsmen got going that series. After that they didnt have many answers. So I guess you won part of the game and we won another part. Luckily the result reflects that appropriately. And the overall result that we beat you 1-0 and drew 1-1 is also a just reflection of the strengths of the two sides in test cricket.
I rest my case. You just can't leave this arguement alone can you? So when I find fault with it you have to go off an insult some of the members. I can't say it surprises me, as it's happened every single time this arguement has taken place.It's a couple of you guys that are boring and repetitive.
Still needed 568 though!full_length said:
Agarkar and Laxman took the score to around 300 from 170/6.
I didnt think when Agarkar got in that we'd win at all.
First of all, Agarkar WAS described as an allrounder long ago, now he can be atmost described as a handy batsmen.Bazza said:...Again how long ago since he got those ducks. He's described as an all rounder, so it's not unreasonable to expect him to get a few runs occasionally. Personally I think Saqlain Mushtaq is the worst batsman to get a test century, but lets try and stay on topic shall we?
Look who's talking, you and your other mates have a history at having a go after Indian bowling, yes i had mentioned Ajit's ton that he scored against England on previous occasion too, to restore some sanity and remind you that Englan'd too doesn't have a potent attack.And who is obsessed with Ajit on this forum? certainly not Indian fans, its none other than you people..Ohh now i know why? after that Ton you people can't get Ajit off ur mindRik said:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did this arguement come up in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choora mentioned AA's innings as he has a history of doing
[/B]
Do you think that Aussies would have let Ajit score a ton had they been in a similar situation?marc71178 said:India were 170-6 when he came in, needing 568 and you think that there was a chance they would've won?
I repeat the pressure was off, and England's bowlers relaxed.