When will England win the World Cup

[Swervy]

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.

hahaha...not able to win vs a single test team, in normal conditions...on a Friday when a red bus drove past the ground at precisely 11.42am etc etc.

seem to remember Holland giving India a fair run for their money as well.

anyway..yeah England didnt get through to the super sixes, victims of the circumstances at the time, not because they didnt play well in the tournament...if they had have got through ie. if it hadnt have rained in the Pak vs Zimbabwe game, and if England then had have played at the same level as they did in the Eng/Australia game in the group games, I am sure England would have got to the semi's, in place of a struggling Sri Lankan team or a hit or miss (at best) Kenyan team ...but it didnt happen..so back to the drawing board for England.

I think someone questioned about England almost beating Australia in the group game...if you look a few weeks previous,England came desparatly close to beating Australia in the second VB series final as well. I know as an Australia supporter, England were one team I thought could cause an upset vs us,and they almost did.

In the final, I had no doubts in my mind that Australia would crush India,and alot of that was due to the group game the two played. Mentally, India were finished in the final at the coin was being tossed..it was game over after the first ball of the game...I am confident England wouldnt have crumbled so much in the field and the game would have been closer.

(I am now waiting for the flak)

 

[Swervy]

all that said..i do feel India did deserve to get to the final

 

[Sanz]

hahaha...not able to win vs a single test team, in normal conditions...on a Friday when a red bus drove past the ground at precisely 11.42am etc etc.

seem to remember Holland giving India a fair run for their money as well.

Yes, Holland gave India a good scare, in a similar way Namibia gave England a run for their money. No one can deny that. But India's performance Changed after the league match against Australia. Laugh all you can, but the fact that England Struggled against Namibia, won against Pakistan because of the TOSS, struggled to make 200 runs against Australia tells a lot about their batting.

anyway..yeah England didnt get through to the super sixes, victims of the circumstances at the time, not because they didnt play well in the tournament...if they had have got through ie. if it hadnt have rained in the Pak vs Zimbabwe game, and if England then had have played at the same level as they did in the Eng/Australia game in the group games, I am sure England would have got to the semi's, in place of a struggling Sri Lankan team or a hit or miss (at best) Kenyan team ...but it didnt happen..so back to the drawing board for England..

Yeah right, If England had won the Toss against India and If India had won against Pakistan and If Zimbabwe had lost to Pakistan blah blah..If every thing had gone in England's favor only then England could have made into the Super Six, but still you think that England perrformed really well.
The simple fact that a team has to rely on others performance to go to next round sums up their pathetic situation. As Far SL getting into the SF, Well they deserved it more than England, They Beat NZ, WI and tied with SA meaning they didn't lose a single game against all the test playing nations in their pool. So what They lost to Kenya, Pakista lost to BD in 1999, doesn't mean they they didn't deserve to reach the finals.

I think someone questioned about England almost beating Australia in the group game...if you look a few weeks previous,England came desparatly close to beating Australia in the second VB series final as well. I know as an Australia supporter, England were one team I thought could cause an upset vs us,and they almost did.

Doesn't make much difference, India came pretty close to Beating Australia in the recent VB series and in the TVS cup (league matches). I dont know what your point is ? England have won only ONE game against Australia in last 15 meetings, as opposed to India winning 3.

 

[Sanz]

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

There is no sarcasm in the first sentence, Except Namibia all other teams (England, SL, Kenya, Pakistan, Zimbabwe & NZ) performed better (than India) in their league match against Australia. According to your logic Australia would have preferred to play India over any of these teams.

It is a lot easier to say after Australia thrashed India in the Finals, but before the final game everyone was expecting that India would put up better preformance than their league match.

 

[PY]

The simple fact that a team has to rely on others performance to go to next round sums up their pathetic situation.

We wouldn't have been relying on other results if we hadn't forfeited the game to Zimbabwe.

Almost certain victory which would have meant we leapfrogged Zimbabwe. Hardly pathetic by any stretch of the imagination.

Except Namibia all other teams (England, SL, Kenya, Pakistan, Zimbabwe & NZ) performed better (than India) in their league match against Australia. According to your logic Australia would have preferred to play India over any of these teams.

Think you might be over-exaggerating a tad. I didn't say anything about the other teams. Not once. Just India and England. And to me, there's no doubting that England played better on one occasion than India managed in either against Australia. Just Australia mind.

I don't doubt that India deserved to be in that final in any way. They won 5 out of 6 games in the Pool stages (however they managed it, they did do it) and won all their games except for two.

This doesn't change my opinion that Australia would have preferred India though.

Honourable draw?

 

[Swervy]

Yes, Holland gave India a good scare, in a similar way Namibia gave England a run for their money. No one can deny that. But India's performance Changed after the league match against Australia. Laugh all you can, but the fact that England Struggled against Namibia, won against Pakistan because of the TOSS, struggled to make 200 runs against Australia tells a lot about their batting.

struggled to make 200 vs Australia tells a lot about Englands batting:

here is what Australia conceded in the field in the WC

vs Pak 228 all out in 44.3
vs India 125 all out in 41.4
vs Holland 122 all out in 30.2
vs Zimb 246-9 in 50
vs Nam 45 all out in 14
vs Eng 204-8 in 50
vs SriL 223all out in 47.4
vs NZ 112 all out in 30.1
vs Kenya 174-8 in 50
vs SriL 123-7 in 38.4
vs India 234all out in 39.2

so to me that 204-8 in 50 overs in tricky conditions tells me that it was actually one of the better performances vs Australia batting wise.

Yeah right, If England had won the Toss against India and If India had won against Pakistan and If Zimbabwe had lost to Pakistan blah blah..If every thing had gone in England's favor only then England could have made into the Super Six, but still you think that England perrformed really well.
The simple fact that a team has to rely on others performance to go to next round sums up their pathetic situation. As Far SL getting into the SF, Well they deserved it more than England, They Beat NZ, WI and tied with SA meaning they didn't lose a single game against all the test playing nations in their pool. So what They lost to Kenya, Pakista lost to BD in 1999, doesn't mean they they didn't deserve to reach the finals..

England didnt go through to the Super Sixes mainly coz they didnt play in Zimbabwe...and yeah they made their choices and faced the consequences...but in purely cricketing terms, they didnt deserve to go out of the tournament then. England were showing signs of clicking,and showing a bit of fight...

Yes England in the end did have to rely on pakistan beating Zimbabwe to go through, but only because they were penalized a game vs Zimb because they beleived it was wrong (for whatever reasons) to play in Harare...so to call their situation pathetic is a bit harsh....for me, respect to the English players who looked like they were going through hell out there.

Doesn't make much difference, India came pretty close to Beating Australia in the recent VB series and in the TVS cup (league matches). I dont know what your point is ? England have won only ONE game against Australia in last 15 meetings, as opposed to India winning 3.

ok..but all i was saying was that England appeared to be levelling things off a bit vs Australia...winning the last test, almost winning the last game of the VB series,and then the thriller in the WC...i can guarantee you that the Aussie players would have shown England quite a lot of respect if they had have met up later in the tournament...as they had been the only team for a long time to show any backbone against them

 

[chicane]

We wouldn't have been relying on other results if we hadn't forfeited the game to Zimbabwe.

Almost certain victory which would have meant we leapfrogged Zimbabwe. Hardly pathetic by any stretch of the imagination.

Think you might be over-exaggerating a tad. I didn't say anything about the other teams. Not once. Just India and England. And to me, there's no doubting that England played better on one occasion than India managed in either against Australia. Just Australia mind.

I don't doubt that India deserved to be in that final in any way. They won 5 out of 6 games in the Pool stages (however they managed it, they did do it) and won all their games except for two.

This doesn't change my opinion that Australia would have preferred India though.

Honourable draw?

Not then, but now mebbe they know that India can beat them....definitely they will prefer England now.

 

[PY]

Not then, but now mebbe they know that India can beat them....definitely they will prefer England now.

That much I do not doubt.

 

[Swervy]

There is no sarcasm in the first sentence, Except Namibia all other teams (England, SL, Kenya, Pakistan, Zimbabwe & NZ) performed better (than India) in their league match against Australia. According to your logic Australia would have preferred to play India over any of these teams.

It is a lot easier to say after Australia thrashed India in the Finals, but before the final game everyone was expecting that India would put up better preformance than their league match.

Australia play alot on other teams confidence...i am 100% certain that the Aussies were 100% certain that they would crush India in the final,all thanks to that group game...it was so predictable that India would lose the plot in the final because of the mental edge that Australia had got over India through that first game.

I think it would have been a different matter vs England...I think England would have played thinking that they could have won the game,just because they showed that they could outplay Australia for large chunks of play beforehand (unfortunatly not the right chunks of play..ie the end). One thing is for certian,England wouldnt have crumbled in field like India did,and therefore there probably would have been more pressure on the Aussies to perform in the field themselves. I know its all if's and but's, but i do genuinely feel that that is the case. As I say if ngland hadnt have forfieted the Zimb game, I would have expected them to go through to the semi's,and from there anything could have happened

 

[Swervy]

Not then, but now mebbe they know that India can beat them....definitely they will prefer England now.

indeed

 

[Sanz]

And I dont think Australia had any such preference. You can continue to think and feel good about it.

Let's settle for a draw here and discuss the topic on hand which is when is England going to Win the CUP. I think 2007 could be their year. Key would be to Keep Vaughan as the Captain, make Flintoff the Vice Captain, Drop Trescothick for a few matches so that he doesn't take his place for granted. Also keep looking for a Good Spinner.

 

[Swervy]

And I dont think Australia had any such preference. You can continue to think and feel good about it.

I will feel good about it coz I think by us playing India we had the chance to win the WC convincingly...so yeah I do feel good about it

 

[biased indian]

Question ->>> So when will England Win World cup??????

Answer ->>> 1) when they will keep silly politics out of cricket
2) And when thier captians are good enough to win all tosses


And for the england vs india fight u all only have to wait a couple of months the real picture will come out in the natwest challange

 

[Sanz]

so to me that 204-8 in 50 overs in tricky conditions tells me that it was actually one of the better performances vs Australia batting wise.

England couldn't hope to win against Australia after making 204 runs. Australia scored vs. Pak 310, Vs, India 128 (in 22), Vs. Holland 170 (in 36), Vs. Zim 248 (48), Vs. Nam 301, Vs. SL 319 , Vs. NZ 208, Vs. Kenya 178 (in 31), Vs. SL 212 , Vs, Ind 359.

As far ass England didn't go to Zimbabwe because of moral choice is a load of Bull and none of my concern. Australia didn't play in Sri Lanka in 1996, still reached the Finals. Let's not get into this Morality talk, England will not be able to save their face. In the end they deserved to lose. Good that ICC gave the points to zimbabwe.

 

[Sanz]

I will feel good about it coz I think by us playing India we had the chance to win the WC convincingly...so yeah I do feel good about it.

That post was for PY.

Australia would have won the Cup anyway, convincingly or not. doesn't make much difference. They would still have got the same CUP & Money for an unconvincing Win. Only thing, it would have been lot more satisfying, atleast India denied Australia of having that satisfaction.

 

[Sanz]

Question ->>> So when will England Win World cup??????

Answer ->>> 1) when they will keep silly politics out of cricket
2) And when thier captians are good enough to win all tosses


And for the england vs india fight u all only have to wait a couple of months the real picture will come out in the natwest challange

Koch_cha - Politics can never be kept out of cricket. And we are not debating who is a better team India or England ? I think India and England are at the same level and both are capable of beating each other on a given day. You can not for sure say that India is going to beat England 3-0 in NW.

 

[biased indian]

Koch_cha - Politics can never be kept out of cricket. And we are not debating who is a better team India or England ? I think India and England are at the same level and both are capable of beating each other on a given day. You can not for sure say that India is going to beat England 3-0 in NW.

so may be u will agree on a 2-1 indian win

 

[Swervy]

England couldn't hope to win against Australia after making 204 runs. Australia scored vs. Pak 310, Vs, India 128 (in 22), Vs. Holland 170 (in 36), Vs. Zim 248 (48), Vs. Nam 301, Vs. SL 319 , Vs. NZ 208, Vs. Kenya 178 (in 31), Vs. SL 212 , Vs, Ind 359.

As far ass England didn't go to Zimbabwe because of moral choice is a load of Bull and none of my concern. Australia didn't play in Sri Lanka in 1996, still reached the Finals. Let's not get into this Morality talk, England will not be able to save their face. In the end they deserved to lose. Good that ICC gave the points to zimbabwe.

oooh...England couldnt hope to win vs australia after that 204????Well they should have done..what were Australia 138 for 8 or something

 

[PY]

135 for 8 with Bichel and Bevan at the crease and the rest is history.

As far ass England didn't go to Zimbabwe because of moral choice is a load of Bull and none of my concern.

Afraid it becomes part of your concern when it is a valid part of the discussion.

I will continue to think what I think until it is otherwise proven.......ie Ponting comes out and says it and as much as Ponting enjoys a good waffle to the press, I don't really fancy my chances.

 

[Sanz]

oooh...England couldnt hope to win vs australia after that 204????Well they should have done..what were Australia 138 for 8 or something

And your Point is ??? Australia were :-

1.84/7 against NZ - They Won
2. 146/5 Against Pak - They won
3. 158/6 against SL - They won
4. 117/5 againset Kenya - They Won
5. 135/8 Against England - they won.

So you see nothing unusual here. Australia had enough depth in their batting to make 204 on any kind of track against any kind of attack.