When will England win the World Cup

[tooextracool]

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.

damn it trescothick always makes the team look bad.

 

[marc71178]

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).

At least the English are gracious enough to admit when they win a game because of the conditions...

 

[twctopcat]

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.

I realise that but just from watching the game you could see the english players squinting and shaking their heads, some of them literally couldnt see the ball.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, but not for Cricketing reasons.

Not Correct, England lost its game against Australia & India. Purely cricketing reasons. You are assuming that England would have beaten Zimbabwe for sure. There is no place for assumptions in Cricket.

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

Because sometimes the conditions are in your favor, sometimes they are not. Law of averages. You are not going to get these decisions in your favor all the time. I hear even Pakistanis blamed conditions for their poor show in the league matches. If Pakistan had won Against England & their match against Zimbabwe was not washed out, they had a fair chance too.

Erm, no they didn't.

Yes, they did.

"England hearts were made to flutter a little before they completed their expected victory over Namibia in the World Cup Group A match at Port Elizabeth. Set 273 to win, Namibia looked as though they might get there at the halfway stage, thanks to an innings of power and substance from Jan-Berry Burger. Once he had gone England's attack reasserted itself to complete a 55-run win."

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/143491_WC2003_19FEB2003.html

 

[Sanz]

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

If you read my posts in this thread, I have already acknowledged that India struggled in their game against Holland and they lost badly to Australia.

And yes Indian performance changed after that, If you cant see that you better see a doctor.

 

[Sanz]

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

Not much. where did I claim that our bowlers bowled well against Australia ?

 

[Raj123]

some of them literally couldnt see the ball

apparently it wasnt just the ball but the fielders too that the batsman could see. why else would any one in the right mind hit straight to a fielder standing so close to the stumps and take off. oh and what an extraordinary captains knock it was too. pure application, just what the situation needed.

 

[Sanz]

So why didn't they go then?

It was definaetly not for morality reason, it was Because they discoved a fake security threat.

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/140994_CI_15FEB2003.html.

 

[Sanz]

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!

Excuse me ?? Nehra did bowl better than all those so called GOOD bowlers of England aka Mr. Caddick, Anderson and every other bowler. Try again.

 

[Sanz]

135/8. if u dont hope for victory at this stage then you really deserve to lose.

Yes, And they lost. They didn't deserve to win.

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???

Oh So now you want to blame the FORMAT ?? First you blame the Conditions, then the politics and now the Format itself. Wasn't this format started in 1999 world cup held in a place called 'England'. Needless to say that England were eliminated from super six in 1999 as well.

And is it a written rule that a world Class team can't be eliminated in preliminary stages ?? If you want all these so called world class teams to go to second round then what is the purpose of having Kenya, Zimbabwe, Holland, BD, Canada etc in the world cup, just to add numbers ??

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?

Why would India be in a similar situation ? We did go to Super Six in 1999 despite losing to Zimbabwe & SA(By beating England ofcourse). You simply were not good enough neither in 1999 nor in 2003, is it too much of a fact to accept ?

 

[Sanz]

yea thx to them we had zimbabwe into the super six stages and what a success they turned out to be.

Oh, so we should have given England the super Six spot, even if they failed to win a single game of significance. As if they were going to make a huge difference and win the world Cup.

 

[Neil Pickup]

This is what I wrote last March in the aftermath of the tournament... I think that it still has its relevance now:

For a tournament that started off under clouds of chaos as the Zimbabwe saga rumbled on, things didn't end up too badly for England. Now you're probably wondering, "what on earth is he talking about... we didn't even make the Super Six!" - and you'd be right, but if you look deeper at the World Cup, then England come out with a lot of credit.

Holland and Namibia (JB Burger excepted) were disposed of without too much difficulty, and after the boycott-defeat against Zimbabwe, the Pakistan match would be England's first "real" contest - or that was the Pakistani plan, anyway. England's batting - not for the only time - didn't fire, but a resolute 63* from Paul Collingwood set Pakistan a reasonable target. The target didn't look reasonable for particularly long into the Pakistani innings however, as the one-trick pony Shahid Afridi got himself out and James Anderson removed Yousuf Youhana and Inzamam rapidly. After that, it was never going to be close and despite a rapid cameo from Shoaib Akhtar - his only memorable contribution except for that 100mph delivery, England cruised to victory and looked set to qualify.

The night conditions that so aided England's bowlers were the same help to the Indians in the next encounter as, despite an Andy Flintoff one-man stand with bat and ball, Ashish Nehra surprised everyone and recorded the best figures of the World Cup (at that point) with 6-23 in an easy Indian win. The crunch game at Port Elizabeth against Australia was another infuriating match that England should have won, but didn't. Andy Bichel had the game of his life taking 7/20 and then hitting 34*, including that six off that James Anderson over in a 73 partnership with Michael Bevan, coming together at 8/135. Still, it looked good for England if Pakistan beat Zimbabwe, but it wasn't to be as Bulawayo had one of its two rainy days in a year - as a result, England and Pakistan joined the West Indies and South Africa in cursing the downpours.

So where are the positives? Well, we only lost to India (in unfavourable conditions yes, but they were the better side) and we scared the proverbial out of the Aussies, it's just that we still haven't got the mental strength to finish them. They were the only two games that we lost - and who's in the final? India and Australia. Australia we know we can match, and we have proven that we can beat India three or four times out of ten. Looking forward to the summer tours - first the NatWest challenge against a Pakistan side whose only consistency is its inconsistency - and then against a shambolic Zimbabwe and a South African side in transition, it's not unreasonable to expect Test wins and a strong chance of winning the NatWest series.

 

[Swervy]

Oh, so we should have given England the super Six spot, even if they failed to win a single game of significance. As if they were going to make a huge difference and win the world Cup.

I think they would have improved the overall quality of the Super Sixes. I sort of lost interest in the super sixes, Australia were obviously streets ahead and werent challenged, and 2 of the teams who I thought were without a doubt played better than both Kenya and Zimbabwe (WI and England) werent in there.

Trust me...at the time the England win over Pakistan was VERY significant

 

[Sanz]

I think they would have improved the overall quality of the Super Sixes. I sort of lost interest in the super sixes, Australia were obviously streets ahead and werent challenged, and 2 of the teams who I thought were without a doubt played better than both Kenya and Zimbabwe (WI and England) werent in there.

Well, Then what can one do ?? We couldn't have denied Kenya and Zimbabwe just because some people had lost their interest. England and NZ are to blamed for that. NZ didn't go to Kenya, England didn't go to Kenya.

Trust me...at the time the England win over Pakistan was VERY significant

England didn't win the game, It was the TOSS of the coin which gave them the match (Just like India's win against England). If England were to play both the games in normal conditions, there was a good chance that they would have lost both the games and gone out of Tournament like in 1999.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think that it was wonderful to have a side like Kenya in the super-sixes. How refreshing to see a side without any prima-donnas, actually enjoying playing their cricket. And as for the Obuya-inspired win over Sri Lanka in the group games, for me that was the highlight of the tournament.

Any complaint that England weren't there is sour grapes. Get over it.

 

[Swervy]

Well, Then what can one do ?? We couldn't have denied Kenya and Zimbabwe just because some people had lost their interest. England and NZ are to blamed for that. NZ didn't go to Kenya, England didn't go to Kenya.



England didn't win the game, It was the TOSS of the coin which gave them the match (Just like India's win against England). If England were to play both the games in normal conditions, there was a good chance that they would have lost both the games and gone out of Tournament like in 1999.

well whatever...i think the general feeling was that England were a better team than pakistan in that tournament and that India were a better team than England, so it all came out in the wash didnt it.

I think the thing is, England had a dismal tournament due to non cricketing circumstances in 2003, whereas in 99 they had a dismal tournament due to the fact they were awful..i just think its a shame we didnt really get to see the obviously better teams just down to moral or safety reasons

 

[luckyeddie]

England didn't win the game, It was the TOSS of the coin which gave them the match (Just like India's win against England). If England were to play both the games in normal conditions, there was a good chance that they would have lost both the games and gone out of Tournament like in 1999.

With the greatest respect, Pakistan would have had difficulty in beating a carpet, but I take your point.

 

[Swervy]

I think that it was wonderful to have a side like Kenya in the super-sixes. How refreshing to see a side without any prima-donnas, actually enjoying playing their cricket. And as for the Obuya-inspired win over Sri Lanka in the group games, for me that was the highlight of the tournament.

Any complaint that England weren't there is sour grapes. Get over it.

i agree, it was good to see Kenya there, but whether it was good for the game is another matter. Kenya beat Sri lanka (fair enough,a great win) and Zimbabwe(in the Supersixes,who sneaked in thanks to the England fiasco and bad weather) and Bangladesh (i think) of the test playing teams...is that really good enough to play in a WC semi final..and then we had the situation where the best team had to play a semi-dangerous Sri lanka team (another team who disappointed me ),and the second best team (India) basically breezed through to the finals coz they got to play a non test team....I dont know..it all just ruined it for me towards the end.

 

[Sanz]

Swervy, Dont you dare complain about this world cup, The spanking Aussie team gave to India more than made up for a lacklusture SF round. It was a great world cup for me, until that fateful day.

I think its good for the game. It also taught a good lesson to England and NZ team managment who were too stubborn to re-consider their decisions.

 

[Swervy]

i agree, it was good to see Kenya there, but whether it was good for the game is another matter. Kenya beat Sri lanka (fair enough,a great win) and Zimbabwe(in the Supersixes,who sneaked in thanks to the England fiasco and bad weather) and Bangladesh (i think) of the test playing teams...is that really good enough to play in a WC semi final..and then we had the situation where the best team had to play a semi-dangerous Sri lanka team (another team who disappointed me ),and the second best team (India) basically breezed through to the finals coz they got to play a non test team....I dont know..it all just ruined it for me towards the end.

i think it is worth a brief word on this...compare the class of team that competed in this world cups semi's and the 1991 WC (in my opinion the best format the tournament has ever had)(records are vs test teams before the semi's were played and I am not including B'desh..sorry and all that))

2003
Australia(6-0-0) vs Sri Lanka (3-2-1)
India (5-1) vs Kenya (2-4-0)

1991
England(w 5 L2 T1) vs South Africa (5-3-0)
NZ (7-1) vs Pakistan (4-3-1)

all the 91 teams were very strong...but look at SL's and Kenyas records...hardly worthy of a semi final berth as far as i am concerned...

Anyway,thats quite a bit off topic..just thought I would share that with you..and I dont even know what my point was