You were WRONG on the Polls !

[Gotchya]

Since when has cricket turned into such a deterministic game ?

Agreed stats provide a good measure but surely not the whole picture. Get out of it !! !

 

[marc71178]

Stats aside, i think most sensable people would agree that the foll 5 are the top one day teams!

Aus,SA,Ind,Sl,Pak.

England are no where near those team.

Funny you should say that - didn't England qualify for the Natwest final ahead of SL - pretty impressive considering they are no-where near that team!


No its not funny.Everyone knows that SL are more or less a One man team.Without Murali i EXPECT England and other weak team to beat Lanka,the body language of the whole team is different when Murali is not playing, they seems to give up the game even b/f it has begun.With Murali around, its changes the scenario.

Whether u like the TRUTH or not, England is a weak onedayer team, they are in danger of not making it to the super six of the WC,UNLESS Pak loses its way for some reason

[Edited on 9/15/02 by lankadesilva]

So the fact that England outplayed the opposition can be discounted then - I notice you ignored my comments regarding India - 4 out of 9 suggests they are far more closely matched than you'll give credit for.

IMO there is a group containing all but Aus, SA and Bangladesh where all nations can beat each other depending largely on luck on the day.

 

[marc71178]

When did i dispute the result of onnedayer series? For u the drawn series must have been satisfying, but for India it was embaressing coz they ended up drawing a series with a team like England!
India did well to Beat England in England and Take the natwest trophy.

Contradicting yourself there a little aren't you? On one hand it's embarassing to draw with England, yet the next minute they've done well to beat England (albeit in a very very close game)

 

[marc71178]

Hopefully India will beat England again in Cham trophy and then later in the World Cup'03.Thats a different thing atht even after those defeats u will still be talking about the drawn series

I would obviously disagree with that first sentence, being English and all

I only brought up the fact that the last series was drawn because you lot keep going on about India winning the last series between the 2 nations.

"Even after those defeats" - that's a bit overconfident isn't it - the sides are fairly close, whether you choose to recognise that fact or not, and on the day either side can win!

Incidentally, say for example, England do manage to win against India this week. Then England's success rate (using your method) will be 55%. Does that then mean that England are a better side than India? No, it doesn't, it just strengthens the argument that there is a big group of nations all close to each other at the moment, which makes for a lot of good Cricket, and heated debate!

 

[warrioryohannan]

Incidentally, say for example, England do manage to win against India this week. Then England's success rate (using your method) will be 55%. Does that then mean that England are a better side than India? No, it doesn't, it just strengthens the argument that there is a big group of nations all close to each other at the moment, which makes for a lot of good Cricket, and heated debate! [/quote]




Thats not going to happen,we all know that

 

[warrioryohannan]

]

Contradicting yourself there a little aren't you? On one hand it's embarassing to draw with England, yet the next minute they've done well to beat England (albeit in a very very close game)

I gave credit to India for winning the Natwest Trophy not coz they defeated an English team(whats the big deal about it?) BUt coz of two reason.First of all Indians have been a big chookers, they nearly choked against England, and were brought back in the match by the youngsters.
Secondarily, India proved that they can win a final afterall, b/f that India had lost nine consecutive finals!

 

[marc71178]

What, the heated debate?

I think it already is!

 

[Neil Pickup]

What next, I toss a coin 10 times and get 6 Heads, so the coin is clearly biased to show heads?

I see that this has put you all off your 40/60 stats argument?
Just going to ignore it a bit longer?

And on current form I would put Australia on their own on a pedestal above the next eight, who can all beat each other currently (some more frequently than others, granted...), then Kenya and Bangladesh.

And as for previous series/tourneys' relevance, it wasn't so long ago that NZ had the upper hand over the Aussies in the VB Series was it?

 

[Anil]

On current form, Australia are miles ahead of anyone else. The SA win over WI was anything but convincing and Pakistan, the other "favourite" is down and out. On current form and as hosts, SL look like Australia's toughest opponents. SA, England & India, the remaining "biggies" come in a bunch after that. It is really difficult to separate them right now. Maybe after the India-England match, we might get a clearer picture. Fact is, none of them look like title-contenders right now.

 

[marc71178]

Anil, it is good to see that finally someone else accepts that there isn't a great deal between most of the nations.

The only part of your post I can disagree with is where you say that the game this week will show us a bit more clearly who is better - IMO ODI cricket is not based solely on ability, but luck does play a big part.

 

[warrioryohannan]

Anil,
I generally i agree with u, though i do think England have no chance atall and Aus biggest threath can be from SA/SL/IND.

SA is perhaps equally good to Aus.Sl are a dangerous team on home ground.India have grown from strength to strength, their confidence is sky high, hopefully they will do well.

Luck do count in onedayer but to a certain extend!

 

[Anil]

Anil, it is good to see that finally someone else accepts that there isn't a great deal between most of the nations.

The only part of your post I can disagree with is where you say that the game this week will show us a bit more clearly who is better - IMO ODI cricket is not based solely on ability, but luck does play a big part.

I really didn't say "will", I used the word "might" and that too very deliberately, because of the reasons you gave. "Might" because if there is a convincing win for either side, the luck factor will be less in play and we can say that one is better than the other, atleast for the moment(I mean, in this tournament).

 

[BengalCat]

Guys,
Just wait for the India-England game, after that we will know which team is better.

 

[Kimbo]

after one game you can always see who is better...
eg. in the last game nz played vs aussie of the vb series they lost, so even though they had beaten aussie the previous times they were worse.
all series should be decided on the last game...

 

[marc71178]

I really didn't say "will", I used the word "might" and that too very deliberately, because of the reasons you gave. "Might" because if there is a convincing win for either side, the luck factor will be less in play and we can say that one is better than the other, atleast for the moment(I mean, in this tournament).

Sorry, I misread your post. Might is the only way to describe it.

 

[marc71178]

Guys,
Just wait for the India-England game, after that we will know which team is better.

No it won't.
Have you not been reading the rest of the thread?

 

[ceo]

I believe that ALL teams except for Bangla, Kenya & Holland can beat the other quite an acceptable no. of times, to say they're on the same level playing field....
However, the 1 thing that really differentiates each of these teams is mental belief and preset notions.

For example, Australia are not as confident vs. India than vs. Pakistan (imho) because they'll always remember recent losses in 1 dayers & tests.
Similarly India are MORE confident vs. Australia (though many say they are the best) than vs. Pakistan, because India has a mental block against the Pak team.

Consider this, in the recent Field Hockey Champions Trophy....
India beat Pakistan in the League Match & then for the Bzone or 4th posistion I think while India was leading 3-1, Palistan came back scoring 3 goals in 4 minutes.

That's how bad India is.
They lack what the Pakis have
"KILLER INSTINCT"
And worse, when down, they hardly have the motivation to springup & attack back.

It was more the fact that a "tired" Andy Flower was batting in the Slog overs, that Zimbabwe lost & India won.
Or that mathc was heading just 1 way with 44 runs fmor 4 overs and 4-5 wickets left !

Anyways, the truth is, all teams are on an almost level playing field, and I believe the South Africans & Australians have a slight edge....

 

[Neil Pickup]

England have no chance at all

:rolleyes:

No team ever has no chance at all in a one-day game.

 

[marc71178]

Except England of course Neil. Haven't you been following the recent threads?

 

[warrioryohannan]

quote]

No team ever has no chance at all in a one-day game.

I'm not taking about a single game, i'm talking about becoming the Champions.Now teams like England/Zimb & even Kenya and Bang can beat another team BUT they are not good enough to go all the way and become champions!

CEO... Mental tougness is one important factor but its not the only thing that differentiate one team from another.

U said that Aus are more confident against Pak than against India.Not simply isn't the case.Aus have won 6 oneday & lost 4 to Pak in their last ten meeting in contrast to 7 onedayer victory & just 3 losses to India.I'm afraid what u had in mind was TEST matches which is a diff ball game.

What makes Aus the best team is coz they have a perfect blend of World class Batters/Bowlers/Wks.Yes they are mentally Tough BUT thats not the only think that differentiate them from other teams.