When will England win the World Cup

[Swervy]

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.

fair point

 

[Sanz]

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

Please refer to my last post

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

To me it looks like a dirty excuse. One game can't change the entire outcome a tournament, Can it ?? (Australia didn't go to Sri lanka, still reached the finals in 1996.) First england refused to go to Zimbabwe for morality sake then they bring up a fake threat letter and immidiately after the world cup they invite Zimbabwe to play in NW series and now they are willing to travel to Zimbabwe as well. I wanted to give this discussion a rest but since you want to continue it :-

1. How can you be so sure that England would have Beaten Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe ?? Didn't Zimbabwe beat England in an ODI in England immidiately after the World Cup ??
2. How can you be so sure that England would have won against India had they won the TOSS
3. How can you be so sure that Pakistan would have beatin Zimbabwe in the rain affected match ??

You are assuming that all 3 was going in England's favor.

 

[PY]

2 and 3 are unnecessary if England had beaten Zimbabwe. Australia 1st, India 2nd and England would have been 3rd.

I'll quite happy to agree to disagree mate. .
Always happy to do that if people stay friendly towards me which you have.

 

[Sanz]

Well, If you dont have the CUP, It doesn't matter what position you ended up.

 

[PY]

Never a truer word spoken (I meant in the league stages if there is any confusion).

 

[marc71178]

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.

Yes, but not for Cricketing reasons.

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.

So how come we can't use the conditions for the India - England game, but you can for Pakistan - England?

They even Struggled against Namibia.

Erm, no they didn't.

 

[marc71178]

struggled to make 200 runs against Australia tells a lot about their batting.

And what does the runs India conceded say about their bowling?

 

[marc71178]

As far ass England didn't go to Zimbabwe because of moral choice is a load of Bull.

So why didn't they go then?

 

[marc71178]

2. How can you be so sure that England would have won against India had they won the TOSS

Well, if Nehra can do what he did with conditions such as the ones India bowled in, just imagine what a good bowler could've done!

 

[Anil]

Well, if Nehra can do what he did with conditions such as the ones India bowled in, just imagine what a good bowler could've done!

just imagine if the english batting had collapsed against the indian bowling after batting first, due to either the bowlers bowling well or the batsmen batting poorly or both.....!

just imagine the "good bowler" bowling without control and direction and conceding a lot of runs.....!

just imagine the indians batting really well under lights(not sachin "flat track bully" tendulkar of course, but the other indians ).....!

just imagine if the total to chase had been really low.....!

use your imagination a little more, marc, there are endless possibilities...

 

[NikhilN]

nobody cares about these ten a penny tournaments...yeah England have won Sharjah..and England won the Natwest last year.

There is one tournament in ODI that is worth anything and that is the world cup..teams have once every 4 years to prove their worth,get it right then,and you are world champs..simple as.

India may have got to the final of the last world cup, but for what???All that did was show that India have along way to go to come anywhere near winning the World Cup and so means jack.

India have a shocking finals record in most tournaments, which would suggest that it is India that are the chokers..England cant get to the finals which suggests that they dont have the talent (although i think if it wasnt for the Zimb fiasco, England could well have got to the semi's)

atleast they get into finals...

 

[Swervy]

atleast they get into finals...

terrible response

 

[Sehwag309]

terrible response

...or troubled response

 

[marc71178]

use your imagination a little more, marc, there are endless possibilities...

Oh come on, you know I wasn't being entirely serious about Nehra (although I do feel he's one of the worst bowlers around and shouldn't IMO be near the Indian team)

But those conditions were so extreme as to be a farce, a fact which the English ackonwledged after "beating" Pakistan with the toss.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

perhaps because they only scored 208 against NZ or 212 against SL?or perhaps because they had them at 135/8. if u dont hope for victory at this stage then you really deserve to lose.

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.

just wondering but do u remember the format for the wc in 96?do u remember that 2 world class teams were not eliminated in the preliminary stages???

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.

yea thx to them we had zimbabwe into the super six stages and what a success they turned out to be. i wonder if u would have said the same had india been in the same situation?

 

[Salamuddin]

Oh come on, you know I wasn't being entirely serious about Nehra (although I do feel he's one of the worst bowlers around and shouldn't IMO be near the Indian team)

But those conditions were so extreme as to be a farce, a fact which the English ackonwledged after "beating" Pakistan with the toss.

Well teams have chased successfully before in Durban in conditions similar to
what England faced that night.

Sorry but England's excuse ain't valid --- they lost that game due to some inept batting from their top order (rather than unplayable swing bowling as per the theory espoused by several English fans).
250 was not that big a total and Flintoff showed that with application getting runs was indeed possible.
But Messrs Knight and Tresothick had other ideas......
Remember their dismissals ? Wasn't exactly due to a minefield of a wicket.
Vaughan's dismissal was also the case of poor shot selection.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

so what about indias 204 against holland or 125 against australia. oh yes their performance changed after that!

 

[twctopcat]

I read that one of the main reasons for Nehra's success in that match was as much his line and length as the fact that the England players simply couldnt pick the ball out in the lights and the sightscreen. Could just be a lame excuse but considering most of the wickets came off similar dismissals off a less than average bowler i'd say it could have something to do with it. Situations like them shouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[tooextracool]

Sorry but England's excuse ain't valid --- they lost that game due to some inept batting from their top order (rather than unplayable swing bowling as per the theory espoused by several English fans).
250 was not that big a total and Flintoff showed that with application getting runs was indeed possible.But Messrs Knight and Tresothick had other ideas......
Remember their dismissals ? Wasn't exactly due to a minefield of a wicket.
Vaughan's dismissal was also the case of poor shot selection.

actually their dismissals showed how frustrated they were under those conditions. vaughan and hussain spent an hr out there barely able to put bat on ball. the wicket was almost impossible to score runs on particularly with the new ball(20 overs or so). its no coincidence that shoaib akhtar ended up scoring 43 off 16 in the previous "minefield" either. not taking any credit of flintoff's innings,it seems that he can make batting look easy in any conditions before he gets out to ramnaresh sarwan.

 

[Salamuddin]

I read that one of the main reasons for Nehra's success in that match was as much his line and length as the fact that the England players simply couldnt pick the ball out in the lights and the sightscreen. Could just be a lame excuse but considering most of the wickets came off similar dismissals off a less than average bowler i'd say it could have something to do with it. Situations like them shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Many of those English batsmen showed no footwork whatsoever -- not a very smart idea against a left arm pace bowler hitting on a consistent line and length.