When will England win the World Cup

[tooextracool]

England don't have anything special about them.

dont be ridiculous now...england have one of the best bowling attacks in odis in gough,harmison,anderson and flintoff and one of the best all rounders in the odi game.

You have seen Srilanka win the world cup with a team with a similar ability, but they had the Jayasuria-Kulawitharana plan which gave them that edge.

so SL was packed with ability eh?mahanama,gurusinha,kaluwitharana etc
and what makes u think england arent going to go into the 2007 wc without a plan?

 

[GermanShepherd]

needless to say if england had faced kenya in the semis and australia in the finals they would have put on a better show than india did.

What do you base that on ? Just because England came close in one game doesn't mean it would have been close had they met again in the world cup final.

If you're hinting England are a better team than India in ODI's, I'm afraid the evidence doesn't really support you. England have won only four of their past 15 games against India with one washout where India were looking pretty strong.

 

[tooextracool]

What do you base that on ? Just because England came close in one game doesn't mean it would have been close had they met again in the world cup final.

nope because they had a pretty good bowling attack and im pretty sure australia wouldnt have come anywhere near 360 on that wicket.

If you're hinting England are a better team than India in ODI's, I'm afraid the evidence doesn't really support you. England have won only four of their past 15 games against India with one washout where India were looking pretty strong.

but england had a pretty good ODI side in the world cup. knight,tresothick,hussain,vaughan,flintoff,stewart,collingwood,white,caddick,anderson,blackwell?

that side is perhaps the best english side in the last 10 yrs and im sure would have definetly been on par with india in the wc if not better.

 

[GermanShepherd]

nope because they had a pretty good bowling attack and im pretty sure australia wouldnt have come anywhere near 360 on that wicket.



but england had a pretty good ODI side in the world cup. knight,tresothick,hussain,vaughan,flintoff,stewart,collingwood,white,caddick,anderson,blackwell?

that side is perhaps the best english side in the last 10 yrs and im sure would have definetly been on par with india in the wc if not better.

Australia have been good enough to get 320+ scores against strong attacks like Pakistan and RSA so to suggest they couldn't get something similar against England is amusing.
I think you overrate the abilities of Messrs Caddick, Anderson, White and Blackwell.

Remember most of that English side played against India a short while before the WC in the Champions Trophy or the Natwest trophy where they failed to beat India. So you're skating on pretty thin ice when you claim they were on par if not better than India.

 

[marc71178]

India win pretty much half the number of knockout situations they face , and that does not mean choking.

But it does mean they've lost half as well - hardly an outstanding record.

 

[marc71178]

England have won only four of their past 15 games against India with one washout where India were looking pretty strong.

I notice that 3 of those came more than 5 years ago - hardly recent.

7-4 with a wash-out is a lot closer to the reality.

 

[twctopcat]

The fact is there are 3 more years til the WC and in that time i can only see the likes of Jones, Anderson and harmison getting better. Add to that the likes of an ever improving Flintoff, a certain Pietersen and many more bowlers (notably Sajid Mahmood) and i'd say England definitely have a better than average chance.

 

[Sanz]

I notice that 3 of those came more than 5 years ago - hardly recent.

7-4 with a wash-out is a lot closer to the reality.

Still it is a almost 70% Indian win

 

[Sanz]

The fact is there are 3 more years til the WC and in that time i can only see the likes of Jones, Anderson and harmison getting better. Add to that the likes of an ever improving Flintoff, a certain Pietersen and many more bowlers (notably Sajid Mahmood) and i'd say England definitely have a better than average chance.

what about England Batting ?? I think this England batting lineup is weaker than ever.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Still it is a almost 70% Indian win

No, it's not. Neither 58% or 64% are anywhere near 70%.

The batting line-up isn't looking fantastic at present but there are several that could/should develop themselves by 2007. Plus Collingwood, Vaughan, Clarke, Flintoff, Strauss and Trescothick will be three years older and (hopefully) three years better.

 

[luckyeddie]

what about England Batting ?? I think this England batting lineup is weaker than ever.

At present, you would be hard-pressed to find many disagreeing, but that's largely incidental as they are in a rebuilding process. I would hope one or two grow into the role and show some responsibility. The bowling looks exceptionally tasty, though.

 

[badgerhair]

what about England Batting ?? I think this England batting lineup is weaker than ever.

All that it is rational to say about the current England ODI batting line-up is that it has no history to look back on. One can go further and say that as a general rule, inexperienced players make more mistakes, and conclude from that that England are likely to struggle against experienced bowling attacks.

But I'd be very hesitant about referring to a line-up of inexperienced players as "weak", as that implies to me that they have little chance of ever being any good, and the players whom England have been picking recently have mostly looked like they've got the ability to be very good players when they grow up.

You will certainly get a very low opinion of the England side by looking at the stats. If you use the stats to make your predictions, though, there are a large number of investment consultants working for Ladbrokes and William Hill who will be only too happy to offer you a deal - you'll be even more welcome than a bloke who turns up to a casino with a system for winning at roulette.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Sanz]

No, it's not. Neither 58% or 64% are anywhere near 70%.

The batting line-up isn't looking fantastic at present but there are several that could/should develop themselves by 2007. Plus Collingwood, Vaughan, Clarke, Flintoff, Strauss and Trescothick will be three years older and (hopefully) three years better.

Okay My bad - 64 %, just one one win away from 70 %. , Anyways I was not suggesting that England can or can not win the world cup. I am just saying that England Batting looks weak at the moment. I dont see Trescothick getting any better however, I think Flintoff, Read and Collingwood definately going to give good support to Vaughan.

 

[Sanz]

But I'd be very hesitant about referring to a line-up of inexperienced players as "weak", as that implies to me that they have little chance of ever being any good, and the players whom England have been picking recently have mostly looked like they've got the ability to be very good players when they grow up.

I understand the re-building part, but off the current lot only Strauss and Clark seem to be new faces, all others have been around for a couple of years. That said I do agree with you.

 

[twctopcat]

As well as looking at the core of Vaughan,Flintoff, Collingwood and Read/Jones. there are plenty of options for the batting lineup over the next 3 years. I just hope tres isn't there unless he can return to some sort of form and soon, no doubt ECB will persist though. I hope some young players develop well in the counties this year. In particular Cook for Essex, Gooch seems to think he's the real deal and he owned in the under 19 WC.

 

[chicane]

For India, the bowling needs to improve by 2007. Hopefully Irfan Pathan and Balaji will shape up well by then. But 2007 seems eons away

 

[tooextracool]

Australia have been good enough to get 320+ scores against strong attacks like Pakistan and RSA so to suggest they couldn't get something similar against England is amusing.
I think you overrate the abilities of Messrs Caddick, Anderson, White and Blackwell.

notice how you leave out the most economical bowler in the wc.and put in blackwell too?you're too kind.

Remember most of that English side played against India a short while before the WC in the Champions Trophy or the Natwest trophy where they failed to beat India. So you're skating on pretty thin ice when you claim they were on par if not better than India.

yep the same side except without caddick,anderson and craig white(which was basically the entire bowling attack in the wc)

 

[thehellraiser]

when will england win the world cup?

emmmmmmm.........never

 

[marc71178]

Still it is a almost 70% Indian win

7 out of 12 is only one over 50-50 - 7 out of 11, not much more so.

Had England won the toss in the WC they would've won (because of the extreme conditions there)

On any day, all but 3 of the Test-playing sides could beat each other in an ODI.

 

[marc71178]

You will certainly get a very low opinion of the England side by looking at the stats.

Depends if it's career or recent that you look at.