When will England win the World Cup

[Swervy]

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.

well NZ pulled out for good reasons I think..safety..remember how close that bomb in pakistan had been to them, and then the possibilty of similar happening in Kenya..you may call it stubborn, I call it playing it safe.

England too had safety concerns (death threats)..and I think the players were also taking a moral stand on the game as well...I would never criticise the players of either team on those decisions...and fair do's to England , they took the choice not to play in Zimb,and it backfired on a cricketing front..although i think they got a lot of respect from people for what they did...it was just unfortunate that it may well have had a detrimental effect on the standard of play in the later stages of the tournament

 

[Sanz]

well NZ pulled out for good reasons I think..safety..remember how close that bomb in pakistan had been to them, and then the possibilty of similar happening in Kenya..you may call it stubborn, I call it playing it safe.

Well NZ was okay to play the ICC trophy(in 2000) but not the world Cup. NZ team wa sin good form and they were pretty sure that they would go to super with at least 4 points but Kenya spoilt their party by beating SL and went to Super SIX with 8 points, SL with 4 and, NZ with ZERO. Their World cup was over the day Kenya made to the Super SIX. Had NZ known that this Kenya boycott would cost them so dearly, they would have definately travelled to Nairobi.

England too had safety concerns (death threats)..and I think the players were also taking a moral stand on the game as well...I would never criticise the players of either team on those decisions...and fair do's to England , they took the choice not to play in Zimb,and it backfired on a cricketing front..although i think they got a lot of respect from people for what they did...

First of all England Threat was a HOAX made from somewhere in England. England wanted to pull the moral card, then ICC threatened them of banning or penalizing then England brought up the fake threat issue. As far as England gaining respect, well all of it went down the drain the day Zimbabwe to play in NatWest.

 

[Swervy]

Well NZ was okay to play the ICC trophy(in 2000) but not the world Cup. NZ team wa sin good form and they were pretty sure that they would go to super with at least 4 points but Kenya spoilt their party by beating SL and went to Super SIX with 8 points, SL with 4 and, NZ with ZERO. Their World cup was over the day Kenya made to the Super SIX. Had NZ known that this Kenya boycott would cost them so dearly, they would have definately travelled to Nairobi.



First of all England Threat was a HOAX made from somewhere in England. England wanted to pull the moral card, then ICC threatened them of banning or penalizing then England brought up the fake threat issue. As far as England gaining respect, well all of it went down the drain the day Zimbabwe to play in NatWest.

i see we arent going to get anywhere here....

 

[PY]

First of all England Threat was a HOAX made from somewhere in England. England wanted to pull the moral card, then ICC threatened them of banning or penalizing then England brought up the fake threat issue.

Prove it.

 

[Sanz]

Prove it.

In the words Tim Lamd CEO of ECB during world Cup :-

"From all the assessments and scrutiny of that letter it is perfectly clear it is a hoax and I think we have been able to persuade the players that indeed is what it is."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2730000/newsid_2736100/2736141.stm

 

[PY]

I meant prove that the ECB faked that threat.

It's not the ECB's fault that they didn't know it was fake. If I got a message saying that a terrorist organisation wanted to hurt me, I'd mess my pants.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I meant prove that the ECB faked that threat.

It's not the ECB's fault that they didn't know it was fake. If I got a message saying that a terrorist organisation wanted to hurt me, I'd mess my pants.

*Plots*...

In all seriousness, I'm agreed with Sanz on the hollowness of the ECB's moral stand that suddenly disintegrated when Zimbabwe came to tour England.

 

[Sanz]

I meant prove that the ECB faked that threat.

It's not the ECB's fault that they didn't know it was fake. If I got a message saying that a terrorist organisation wanted to hurt me, I'd mess my pants.

Simple reason,
1. That the threat was made in January and ECB didn't feel it necessary to inform either ICC or its players or even the police until ICC threatened them with penalties and SA threatened them with cancelling their England tour.

2. That it came out from an organization about which there is no signs that it exists in England.

3. That Zimbabwe doesn't have any history of Terrorists attacks on Tourists.

Andre Pruis, deputy National Commissioner of the South African Police, who is in charge of World Cup security, concluded that the letter from the “Sons and Daughters of Zimbabwe” was “propaganda and not a direct threat”. He said it was “nonsense”.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/cric-f25.shtml

 

[PY]

Fair enough, to be honest.....you've argued your point well and I'm getting a little bored of it so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[marc71178]

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.

If England had been made to play against their wishes, don't you think they may have been more than a little fired up for the game, which was against a considerably weaker side?

Because sometimes the conditions are in your favor, sometimes they are not.

That wasn't what I said though.

Yes, they did.

Erm, no they didn't - they were never under any serious threat of losing that game.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Yes, but did Caddick and Anderson bowl under lights in extremely helpful conditions (similar to those Anderson took a 5 or 6-fer in the previous match)?

Try again

 

[tooextracool]

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.

so what makes you think that england DIDNT improve after that performance against namibia?they NEARLY beat australia for christ's sake.

 

[tooextracool]

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

i said if they didnt "HOPE" to win.read my posts properly!!!

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 ??

you seriously should get treated for dyslexia....it really is important.
i havent in any way blamed the format.this format is tons better than the crummy format of the 96 wc. you stated that australia despite forfeiting their game in SL managed to reach the quarters. the reason being that all they had to do was beat kenya,uae etc and they were in. in this world cup beating namibia etc was not enough as it proved for england.dude seriously most of you're posts bare no relation to my point.

Why would India be in a similar situation ?

i said "IF". dont be fooled if somewhere down the line the same thing happens to india and you end up giving the same excuse that i am for england.

By beating England ofcourse

yep in another conditions affected match.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

yep that england team from 99 was just as good as it was in 2003 and pakistan would definetly have thrashed england just like they did in the natwest challenge.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

of course...nehra was the most economical bowler or the wc and he also managed to take 4 wickets against australia.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, but did Caddick and Anderson bowl under lights in extremely helpful conditions (similar to those Anderson took a 5 or 6-fer in the previous match)?

Try again

Didn't Caddick & Anderson bowl under similar conditions against Pak ? And No Anderson didn't take 5 or 6 wickets. He took 4 wickets. Caddick took 1.

Nehra took 6. So you assumption that 'If a crap bowler like Nehra could take 6 wickets than imagine what a good bowler like Caddick could have done' doesn't hold any ground.

 

[Sanz]

of course...nehra was the most economical bowler or the wc and he also managed to take 4 wickets against australia.

Well Nehra bowler better than Caddick in the tournament despite being a crap bowler and a newcomer. He didn't have the experience of Caddick, If you want to compare, compare Srinath with Caddick and Anderson with Nehra.

As far as 4 wickets against Australia on a helpful track (where even a Bichel took 7 wickets) is concerned It doesn't mean anything because Australia won the match and Caddick, being the great bowler he was, wasn't really able to get a tailender like Bichel out esp when he was batting under trpendous pressure. Had Nehra and India been in that situation, I am sure He would have got Bichel out.

 

[tooextracool]

Well Nehra bowler better than Caddick in the tournament despite being a crap bowler and a newcomer. He didn't have the experience of Caddick, If you want to compare, compare Srinath with Caddick and Anderson with Nehra.

As far as 4 wickets against Australia on a helpful track (where even a Bichel took 7 wickets) is concerned It doesn't mean anything because Australia won the match and Caddick, being the great bowler he was, wasn't really able to get a tailender like Bichel out esp when he was batting under trpendous pressure. Had Nehra and India been in that situation, I am sure He would have got Bichel out.

okay this has got to be the most hilarious post ive ever seen.there are so many points i need to make here.

1)how exactly did nehra bowl better than caddick?6 wickets in helpful condions is not what id call
2)the wicket against australia was not half has helpful as the wicket on which nehra got 6 wickets.mcgrath etc didnt get too many wickets on that pitch so does that mean he bowled badly?
3)nehra would have got bichel out??hell if shane bond and all the other nz and eng bowlers couldnt get bichel out nehra couldnt either. unless of course he bowler under the lights.
4)4 wickets against australia doesnt mean anything???surely you are out of you're mind.and how many balls did he get against bichel?not many i can assure you.
5) have u at any point even thought about including the most economical bowler into this discussion?
6)how many wickets did nehra or srinath get against australia in the final?or for that matter even in the league match against australia in helpful conditions when india got 125 all out??

 

[Sanz]

i said if they didnt "HOPE" to win.read my posts properly!!!

And I said England couldn't hope for a win after scoring 204 against Australia (Not after getting them 135/8). Practice what you preach, I meant read my post properly before handing out advice to others.

you seriously should get treated for dyslexia....it really is important.
i havent in any way blamed the format.this format is tons better than the crummy format of the 96 wc. you stated that australia despite forfeiting their game in SL managed to reach the quarters. the reason being that all they had to do was beat kenya,uae etc and they were in. in this world cup beating namibia etc was not enough as it proved for england.dude seriously most of you're posts bare no relation to my point.

England didn't really beat Zimbabwe in the World Cup, did they ? After winning the lottery against Pakistan all they needed was to beat zimbabwe and they failed to do so. It seems to me that basically you want a tournament format where England can reach the next round by just beating teams like NL & Namibia. Even in 1996 their story was no different, the only reason England Qualify for next round was because they beat only NL & UAE. They lost all other games in that world cup.

i said "IF". dont be fooled if somewhere down the line the same thing happens to india and you end up giving the same excuse that i am for england.

Another foolish assumption on your part. If my country's Cricket Board acts as dumb as ECB, I would blame them instead of blaming the conditions, Format and politics. I will never come up and say that we really played well even though we won only aganist Namibia(not that easily) and Holland and won a lottery against Pakistan. NEVER, NEVER.

yep in another conditions affected match.

whatever, We still won the match.

 

[Sanz]

okay this has got to be the most hilarious post ive ever seen.there are so many points i need to make here.

Only thing which is more hillarious is YOU.

1)how exactly did nehra bowl better than caddick?6 wickets in helpful condions is not what id call

Nehra Finished up with 15 wickets at an avg of 19 Whereas Caddick ended up with 8 with an avg of 22.

Caddick bowled in similar conditions against Pakistan, He got ONE, Nehra got 6.

2)the wicket against australia was not half has helpful as the wicket on which nehra got 6 wickets.mcgrath etc didnt get too many wickets on that pitch so does that mean he bowled badly?

But the wicket against Pakistan was. On the same track Bichel took 7 where Caddick took 4.

3)nehra would have got bichel out??hell if shane bond and all the other nz and eng bowlers couldnt get bichel out nehra couldnt either. unless of course he bowler under the lights.

Hell If you can make all the assumptions in your favor and say that If England had played in Zimbabwe they would have won or If england had won the toss against India they would have won or If Zim-Pak was not washed, Zim was going to lose etc etc, Why cant I make just one ? As for as Nehra getting wickets under lights, He did take 4 wickets against Lanka under Normal conditions.

4)4 wickets against australia doesnt mean anything???surely you are out of you're mind.and how many balls did he get against bichel?not many i can assure you.

Well, He still had one over left, His captain didn't have enough confidence in him, infact Hussain had more confidence in Anderson's bowling than Caddick to give the ball in 49th over when England needed about 15 runs. Tells a lot about his bowling.

5) have u at any point even thought about including the most economical bowler into this discussion?

Caddick wasn't really the most economic bowler in the world Cup, Was he ?? I dont think Nehra's economy rate was that bad. Even in the finals he bowled pretty well as compared to other players. In the finals It was Srinath & Zaheer who gave most of the runs.

6)how many wickets did nehra or srinath get against australia in the final?or for that matter even in the league match against australia in helpful conditions when india got 125 all out??

Nehra Didn't play against Australia in the league match. Nehra didn't bowl that badly in the Finals and was clearly the best bowler for India that day.