When will England win the World Cup

[Sanz]

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.

You are getting more ridiculous with every post. You are comparing Pakistan's World up Team with their Natwest Team ?? Which was without Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Saeed Anwar, Inzamam Ul Haq & Saqlain Mushtaq ??

 

[Sanz]

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

There is no such thing called Nearly beat or nearly won. You either win or lose. England needed to take all 10 aussie wickets, they failed to do so.

 

[twctopcat]

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.

Easy on the sarcasm, that's just what was said, i'm not making excuses for england's batting. But the lights in one form or another do explain the figures of Nehra's bowling, simple as that.

 

[Sanz]

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?

Not Necessarily, they could have been a demoralized side like NZ Team which was forced to Play in Pakistan and look at their performance. And the same zimbawe side beat england in england in NW series after the world cup, so I am not too sure about England beating Zimbabwe.

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

Well they were when Namibia were 173/3. If you want to be in denial, I cant help much.

 

[Sanz]

So what does boycotting Zimbabwe deserve then?

Elimination?

Sorry, to reply to this so late. But England didn't really Boycott Zimbabwe. They didn't go there because of security reasons.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If we don't progress from "state and re-state" towards "structured argument" soon, then it's going to be bye-bye-thread time.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

About this India Vs England issue...maybe on a given day, they can beat each other. But I would not say that India are on the same level as England. India have a more balanced team now and would win more matches than it'd lose against England as they are better. And the recent performances by both teams both against each other and different opposition prove this.

 

[Sanz]

Just Curious where do England & India Stand in ICC ODI ranking and CW rankings ??

 

[Neil Pickup]

ICC Rankings
5 England - 108
6 India - 107

CW Rankings
4 India - 977
6 England - 921

I'm obviously biased, but aren't the CW rankings so much more accurate?!

 

[marc71178]

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

4 wickets against Australia in an ODI anywhere is a superb performance.

The fact Bichel took 7 means nothing.

 

[a massive zebra]

ICC Rankings
5 England - 108
6 India - 107

CW Rankings
4 India - 977
6 England - 921

I'm obviously biased, but aren't the CW rankings so much more accurate?!

Definetly. How can India be ranked as the sixth best ODI team in the world?

 

[marc71178]

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.

Failed for non-Cricketing reasons.

 

[marc71178]

Not Necessarily, they could have been a demoralized side like NZ Team which was forced to Play in Pakistan and look at their performance.

You mean a complete shoadow NZ side featuring about as many regulars as in the recent Zimbabwe side?

 

[Sanz]

ICC Rankings
5 England - 108
6 India - 107

CW Rankings
4 India - 977
6 England - 921

I'm obviously biased, but aren't the CW rankings so much more accurate?!

That's what I thought. Confirms my view that England and India are pretty much on the same level.

 

[marc71178]

whatever, We still won the match.

No, you won the toss and the rest was a natural progression.

 

[marc71178]

Definetly. How can India be ranked as the sixth best ODI team in the world?

Recent results aren't as good as people like to make out.

In the last 18 months they've lost at home to the Windies and been hammered by the Kiwiws.

 

[Sanz]

You mean a complete shoadow NZ side featuring about as many regulars as in the recent Zimbabwe side?

Dont assume things on your own. I was talking about the Test series they played Pakistan before returning to NZ after the Bomb Blast. NZ team was not interested in touring Pakistan but they forced to do so after BCCI & PCB both talked about cancelling their future tours to NZ. NZ team lost the ODI 3-0 and were thrashed in the 1st test at Lahore.

It was a NZ side led by Stephen Fleming with most of their top players in the team.
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002/NZ_IN_PAK/

 

[tooextracool]

Only thing which is more hillarious is YOU. .

im quite sure that anyone who believes that nehra is a better fast bowler than caddick someone whos taken more than 200 wickets in test cricket should not be released from the mental hospital soon

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

did nehra take 4 wickets against australia?no he didnt

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

ok so mcgrath didnt get any wickets in that match in which bichel got 7. so mcgrath is worse than caddick and nehra. you're theory absolutely baffles me.

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

and mcgrath took none....whats ur point here?

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..

yea cause lanka batting is as good as the australian batting lineup

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..

yea because caddick isnt a good bowler in the death. i think anyone whos followed caddick's career would know that,but unforunately you didnt and yet u rate nehra a guy who cant even land 6 balls an over without bowling one down leg side

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..

seriously have you hear of flintoff????

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.

how many wickets did he take?

 

[Sanz]

4 wickets against Australia in an ODI anywhere is a superb performance.

I was just wondering Why didn Hussain not give him the ball in 49th over then ?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I was just wondering Why didn Hussain not give him the ball in 49th over then ?

He thought that Anderson's variations would surprise Bichel.