When will England win the World Cup

[luckyeddie]

By the way, it helps to get your facts straight -- its India who have won 6 out of their past eleven against the Windies not the other way around.

Never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
Let's see whether we can plaster egg all over GermanShepherd's face. Last 11 ODI games between India and the West Indies (ignoring the venues) in reverse order, like in the Miss World contest.....

Vijayawada - W Indies won
Jodhpur - India
Vadodara - W Indies
Ahmedabad - India
Rajkot - India
Nagpur - W Indies
Jamshedpur - W Indies
Port of Spain - India
Port of Spain - W Indies
Bridgetown - India

Let's see 5-5 and just the final in Harare from 2001 to go..... can India pull it off? The crowd roars, yes, it's a West Indies victory. I'm afraid the victory goes to the West Indies - and Swervy.

(double-checks...)

West Indies v India series in West Indies - India won 2-1 with two games rained off.
India v West Indies series in India - 4-3 to the West Indies
The final in Zimbabwe - West Indies.

Sorry, but I'm the pedant around here now Richard's departed.

 

[tooextracool]

Knight: 100 ODI matches
Tresothick: 77 ODI matches
Hussain: 88 ODI matches
Vaughan: 41 ODI matches
Flintoff: 68 ODI matches
Stewart: 170 ODI matches
Collingwood: 44 ODI matches
White: 51 ODI matches
Caddick: 54 ODI matches
Anderson: 28 ODI matches
Blackwell: 20 ODI matches

Out of those players, only Stewart & Knight played at least 100 ODI's. Even then when you look at how many matches Stewart played (170), even then whilst thats still a fair amount of experience, its no where near the amount of ODI matches from some players from India, Australia etc.

When England decides to play more ODI's and therefore the players gain more experience, only then can they say that they have a realistic chance of winning the World Cup in 2007.

Out of those players in that list; Knight, Hussain, Stewart & Caddick have either retired from ODI's or retired completely from the game. So that means it is even more important that England plays more ODI's so the young players gain more experience.

Which is why they've introduced 20-20 cricket and increased the number of odi's that they play each year. england now plays a natwest challenge and then a natwest series every summer,and this yr were scheduled to play 7 odis against the WI. the trend is definetly shifting towards odi cricket. and the fact that they are one of the few teams who actually pick only players who will be around till 2007(despite some ridiculous demands of bringing back thorpe,hussain,butcher etc) shows that they are definetly picking younger players. by 2007 england will definetly be one of the best prepared teams,whether that helps them or whether they end up getting serious injuries just before the big one is a different thing

 

[Salamuddin]

Sorry, but I'm the pedant around here now Richard's departed.

Luckyeddie (aka Old man) is also the fool around here.
Every forum has one. He just beats his mate Muppet Robbins to the post.

 

[luckyeddie]

Luckyeddie (aka Old man) is also the fool around here.
Every forum has one. He just beats his mate Muppet Robbins to the post.

Poor marc. The respect you have for him is awesome. As for me being the resident forum fool, I wasn't aware that you had vacated the position.

Oh, one thing you will need to know in a couple of years time. 'Old' ceases to be an insult when you leave primary school.

Nighty night, don't let the funnel-webs bite.

 

[badgerhair]

When England decides to play more ODI's and therefore the players gain more experience, only then can they say that they have a realistic chance of winning the World Cup in 2007.

It's not just about *deciding* to play more ODIs. They actually have to take place. In SL, there were three scheduled but only one played, and here in WI there are 7 scheduled and it looks likely that only one (rain-shortened) match will even be completed.

If we only get to play 20% of scheduled games, it's going to be difficult to gain any experience at all, other than of card-playing.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Sanz]

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.

I would count 7 over 11, Still 64, not much of a difference I agree. I do think England, WI, NZ, Ind and Pakistan are pretty much at the same level in ODIs.

As far as the world cup game is concerned, you can't say for sure that England would have won, if they won the toss, because they lost the ODI against AUS despite winning the TOSS and batting first.

 

[marc71178]

As far as the world cup game is concerned, you can't say for sure that England would have won, if they won the toss, because they lost the ODI against AUS despite winning the TOSS and batting first.

Yes, but this was completely different because of the conditions under the lights at that ground!

 

[Sanz]

so are WI better than India then...as they have won 6 of the last 11 games between the two...oh and NZ have beaten India 9 times in the last 15 games,lost only 5 and one no result...so NZ are miles better than India...but england have beaten twice in their last 3 ODI's vs NZ, so England must be better...just goes to show what a crock that kind of arguement is.

If you take a look at the those games which India lost to WI & NZ, One Guy with the name of 'Sachin Tendulkar' didn't play in most of those games. I am not suggesting that India would have won all the games, but just that those stats could have been lot better. Playing on the Cow Dung pitches in NZ didn't help either.

Just remember, that England were far from embarressed by Australia in the world cup (and were really the only team that werent... i think it is fair to say that if England had got through to the next round and played that well,they could well have been in the final, so the potential does shine occasionally...with experience that will shine through more and more consistantly

Well England were bowling second in a very friendly conditions and still lost. Look at the record in last 10-15 matches, India clearly has a better chance of beating Australia than England.

PS :- I am not suggesting that India is a better side than England, I think both the countries are on the same level, but to make assumptions like Australia would preferred to play against India over England or England would have beaten India had they won the toss is totally ridiculous. India Played better than England in the World Cup and that is a fact.

 

[luckyeddie]

If you take a look at the those games which India lost to WI & NZ, One Guy with the name of 'Sachin Tendulkar' didn't play in most of those games. I am not suggesting that India would have won all the games, but just that those stats could have been lot better.

Haven't you heard? He's a cho... (voice trails into distance)

 

[marc71178]

PS :- I am not suggesting that India is a better side than England, I think both the countries are on the same level, but to make assumptions like Australia would preferred to play against India over England or England would have beaten India had they won the toss is totally ridiculous.

Re that India-England match - the side that batted first would've won 19 out 20 times if it was played that many times.

It was a similar situation in the England Pakistan game, where we were lucky enough to win the toss (and I seem to remember a lot of us on here making that point at the time)

 

[Sanz]

Yes, but this was completely different because of the conditions under the lights at that ground!

Well England did have their share of luck against Pakistan. You can not say for sure that England would have won had they won the TOSS. There have been 19 D/N games at Durban and 50% of the time team batting second has won the game. This stat would have been in the favor of the team batting second had Pollock not made a mistake against SL in the World Cup.

 

[Sanz]

Re that India-England match - the side that batted first would've won 19 out 20 times if it was played that many times.

Not True. Try this :- http://statserver.cricket.org/guru/...ershigh=;event=0;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

 

[PY]

Think Marc is trying to say that it was those specific conditions which were very very helpful to India's pace bowlers in that match.

You make a very good point about England and Pakistan being won partially on the toss but unfortunately that isn't the argument.

I'm inclined to agree with Swervy that Australia would have preferred England less but not by a great deal. England were playing very well at the World Cup and did run Australia close whereas India got thoroughly spanked.

 

[marc71178]

You make a very good point about England and Pakistan being won partially on the toss but unfortunately that isn't the argument.

Actually my argument is based very much on the same argument as the England Pakistan match.

The conditions experienced by Nehra almost exactly mirrored the conditions Anderson had against Pakistan.

 

[PY]

Actually my argument is based very much on the same argument as the England Pakistan match.

The conditions experienced by Nehra almost exactly mirrored the conditions Anderson had against Pakistan.

I was saying that Pakistan aren't part of the argument about who Australia would have preferred to have played.

 

[Sanz]

Think Marc is trying to say that it was those specific conditions which were very very helpful to India's pace bowlers in that match.

You make a very good point about England and Pakistan being won partially on the toss but unfortunately that isn't the argument.

I'm inclined to agree with Swervy that Australia would have preferred England less but not by a great deal. England were playing very well at the World Cup and did run Australia close whereas India got thoroughly spanked.

You and Swervy are saying this after watching the Finals. You couldn't have said this on the eve of the Finals.

Are you suggesting that India were not playing well in the World Cup ?? IMO, Except for the loss against australia in the league match, We played pretty good cricket (that is until the finals) better than England or any other team. Throughout the tournament we lost only to the Team which won the Cup.

There was no chance of Australia preferring to Play against India rather than England in the Finals, because England didn't even make the Super Six.

The fact that England was not able to win a single game against any test playing nations in a normal condition tells a lot about the English team's performance. They even Struggled against Namibia.

 

[PY]

Not basing it on anything but performances against Australia, England proved to be more demanding opposition.

Bit basic logic which is rather naive to base it on but you have to admit that England did better against Australia so maybe the Aussies wanted India more as they had already done them over bigtime once.

 

[Sanz]

Not basing it on anything but performances against Australia, England proved to be more demanding opposition.

Bit basic logic which is rather naive to base it on but you have to admit that England did better against Australia so maybe the Aussies wanted India more as they had already done them over bigtime once.

Yeah Right, Australia would have preferred to play against India over England, Holland, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Kenya, NZ, Pakistan because all of them did better than India and were in more demanding position than India in their games against Australia.

Only difference is that none of them made to the Finals, But India despite being the weakest team made to the finals. Some teams have all the luck.

 

[Swervy]

Let's see 5-5 and just the final in Harare from 2001 to go..... can India pull it off? The crowd roars, yes, it's a West Indies victory. I'm afraid the victory goes to the West Indies - and Swervy.

well i do like to get my facts right before spouting off about something

 

[PY]

Yeah Right, Australia would have preferred to play against India over England, Holland, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Kenya, NZ, Pakistan because all of them did better than India and were in more demanding position than India in their games against Australia.

Only difference is that none of them made to the Finals, But India despite being the weakest team made to the finals. Some teams have all the luck.

I always find that sarcasm is a great way to lose an argument or shows people don't understand what is being said.