You lot booed the legend.Salvation said:
cnuts
cnuts
Couldn't hear the noise when he came on? We cheered him for ever ball. The jeering idots were the East and West standers who are 'kin sandwich muncing idots. The Pavilion people are foolish VIPs who can't contribute to the atmosphere whatsoever. Us North standers had the team going.
He's past it BTW.
I missed his dismissal though.
He's past it BTW.
I missed his dismissal though.
Fair enough we'l just have to agree to disagree on a few things. One of those things is Pakistan. They are nowhere near how good you think they are. Whenever the ball seams around a little they are absolutely clueless. I dont want to build Sehwag, Laxman, Sachin, Dravid and co. up on a day we'v batted so poorly, but im sure you will agree over the years they have carried our team, and performed home and away even our the bowling hasnt been the best(Aus, Eng, Pak). Even recently when we went to Pakistan RP Singh and Pathan were making a mockery of their batting. Same happened the last time we went there when Balaji and Pathan did the same. They have not done anything abroad in recent times, and of late they've done something at home. Atleast when we were on our run we drew against England and more importantly Australia(that is rare) in their home, and beat Pakistan away. Pakistan's clame to fame away from home is drawing in India.Spoony said:
Last of all, i dont want to really get into this who is better between England and India. I dont think there is much to choose, but IMO England are slightly ahead(test cricet in particular), but we do have enough talent here to be challenge for Australia's spot in the next few years, and give England and Australia a good fight. Yes, things to work on, but these things can change very quickly.
That's a very fair analysis - I think Pakistan will struggle in England, non of their top batsmen have any experience of English conditions, although their bowling attack might do some damage, dependent on Shoaib's injury and mind set.Spoony said:
feck you.DONADO said:
and your mother.
any one got any clips of Jimmy running out Dhoni?
or any of the wickets?
or any of the wickets?
The thing is. India can't play any other sport. At all. Pole-sitting - not a sport. Hockey - not a sport. Call centres - sort of a sport, but not yet acknowledged as such. So, it's harder for them to admit they're not as good as England at cricket.
elephant polo?
A sport, but we'd beat them at it.
where would we get the elephants?
maybe i could ride Flintoff.
maybe i could ride Flintoff.
What would that have to do with elephants?
i just thought since he's quite tall...and chunky.sincher said:
I think we're better, but slighty more than you think. However, I reckon you're better at the One Day stuff. And I've been checking Pakistan's record over the last 18 months. They've not played much Test cricket. Three victories at home. England, India and I think Zimbabwe. Two draws away from home. 1-1 in a 2 test match series in the Windies and of course a draw in India. I think they lost to Australia in Australia 18 months ago pre Woolmer. I think that's a good record. Not as good as England's recent record, as we've beaten SA and WI away. Your recent record is the worst out of the three 'next' best sides.amolbhatia100 said:
Sultan said:
Yes. I agree. Although Yousuf Yohanna and Inzamam have played here before. But I think we'll beat them. And yes their chances depend on the fitness of Shoaib Akhtar.
You need to look harder at Pakistans results then. What did they do on their last tours to Australia and England? I'v seen quite a bit of them of late, and they are hopeless against the moving ball. On our tours to Australia and England, we were very good, drew both series' and our batsman were superb. Even when we when you look at our previous tour to Pakistan and this one, whenever the ball moved around they were clueless, even against our inexperienced pace attack.Spoony said:
Im a little tired of this argument. I dont think theres much between England and India. England are a little more mature as a team, with all the parts in place. In a little time wel get there, lots of young talent in this country coming through. Were a better one day team than England and have been for a long long time, especially in big tournaments(having said that, wel probably lose this). England are better in tests, we have fallen in that department of late, but i think its just a blip.
England are better than India.
correctomundo.Dubai_Devil said:
India pacers took 26. England's pacers took 36. Pretty even assuming Patel and Sreesanth would have got 10 wickets between them if they had played in all 2 Tests.DONADO said:
The victory in the second test proves that England cannot cut the mustard in the subcontinent especially in India.
England can win a test only if India plays poorly
England can win a test only if India plays poorly
Shut up Vijay you idiot, no one takes anything you say seriously and you're a rubbish wum.
It wasnt meant for you.Dubai_Devil said:
why do you even bother reading it?
Idiot.
Cheers mate.Dowders_Jnr said:
Although I think Indian pacers took 27.
Anyway...a fairly even stat there..considering that Englands spin bowlers are rubbish and rarely get the chance to bowl.Our pacers took 27 even when Kumble took 16 and Harbhajan 7 or something.
I'd say thats a fairly decent show for a test series in India.
Our batters however.......
Well that is true. We were fecking awful not only in the final test, but throughout the series. Had we played like we normally do at home, we would have won this easily.vijay said:
Ifs and buts eh?amolbhatia100 said:
Player vs Player we are a superior team. For a deciding test we should've fielded an extra batter... either Kaif or Laxman instead of a bowler. Dravid made some wrong decisions and playing the deciding test with five bowlers was a mistake.amolbhatia100 said:
England never player well. India self destructed.
You're one tedious fecker. You should post in the CE forum. They drew in England in 2000. But that was 6 years ago. We're talking recent results. Results over the last 18 months. You look a team that's peaked and is on the decline. Pakistan are a team that's had some good results, since Woolmer and are on the rise. England are best of the bunch, I think the next three series will decide if they're the best in the world. You on the otherhand will need to rebuild.amolbhatia100 said:
Capiche?
And there's more than just a small gap between ourselves and India. We played the better stuff in your back yard with a depleted side. We'd beat you comfortably this time around in England. I don't give a shite what happened here last time. It's like Arsenal fans telling us they had some good results two years ago. . .forgetting recent results.
Bitter loser.amolbhatia100 said:
Do you guys lie and delude yourself like this in every other aspect of your life? "If we played like we normally do at home we would have won." What kind of retarded statement is that?
The fact is you were poor against an England team missing 5 key players, that were handing out debuts out of necessity rather than choice. Usually the reason one team doesn't win is because the opposing team is doing something right, and any impartial judge would tell you that we got a lot right.
Batting in the sub-continent is entirely different to anywhere else in the world and we had a lot of players trying this out for the first time, or with the experience of Pakistan still very fresh. And yes, its fair to say that at times our batsmen played poorly in the same way that its fair to say that your bowlers played well. Though that would also have to apply the other way round. If we're dealing in facts, our batsmen scored more centuries, we had the highest innings score, the player with the highest average. Your players are brought up playing on Indian wickets, yet at no stage did you ever look superior to a patched up team.
You can lie to yourselves in as many different ways as you like. The facts are we batted poorly, yet not as poorly as you. Our pacers are better, we had the better leaders, more bottle and more than anything else, our desire not to lose was greater than yours was to win. Frankly if I were Indian, that would leave me feeling pretty worried.
The fact is you were poor against an England team missing 5 key players, that were handing out debuts out of necessity rather than choice. Usually the reason one team doesn't win is because the opposing team is doing something right, and any impartial judge would tell you that we got a lot right.
Batting in the sub-continent is entirely different to anywhere else in the world and we had a lot of players trying this out for the first time, or with the experience of Pakistan still very fresh. And yes, its fair to say that at times our batsmen played poorly in the same way that its fair to say that your bowlers played well. Though that would also have to apply the other way round. If we're dealing in facts, our batsmen scored more centuries, we had the highest innings score, the player with the highest average. Your players are brought up playing on Indian wickets, yet at no stage did you ever look superior to a patched up team.
You can lie to yourselves in as many different ways as you like. The facts are we batted poorly, yet not as poorly as you. Our pacers are better, we had the better leaders, more bottle and more than anything else, our desire not to lose was greater than yours was to win. Frankly if I were Indian, that would leave me feeling pretty worried.
Harbhajan took 8 wickets, your pacers took 26. Don't thank me only to go on and contradict me.DONADO said:
Former captain Sunil Gavaskar led the outcry in India following the defeat by England in the third and final Test.
The hosts were skittled for a paltry 100 to go down by 212 runs, with the last seven wickets falling for just 25.
"Too much one-day cricket and too much shuffling of the batting order has had an adverse effect on confidence," Gavaskar wrote in the Hindustan Times.
"It is not just the defeat but the manner of losing without a semblance of a fight that needs examination."
Former Test opener Kris Srikkanth was even more scathing, saying in his column in The Asian Age: "This abject surrender was a disgrace.
"Lacking the will to fight it out for a draw was a clear pointer that India have a long way to go to lay claim on the number two spot in Test cricket.
"It was a pathetic batting display by India with the famed top-order showing no real resistance."
All the Indian newspapers praised England's efforts, particularly the leadership of stand-in captain Andrew Flintoff.
And they were unanimous in their damning verdict on India's performance:
Times of India: "India tamely crashed on Wednesday to their seventh lowest total...100 runs is all that some of the world's best batsmen made among themselves in an embarrassing day for Indian cricket."
Hindistan Times: "How could a team with an accomplished batting line-up collapse from 75/3 to 100 all out in a mere 74 minutes after lunch? It's a question that will always haunt our minds."
Indian Express: "India lost much of their credibility as a contender for the number one slot...in a display of the most senseless and spineless batting by Rahul Dravid's team in recent times."
Asian Age: "It was all over in a nightmarish haemorrhage of wickets. What happened here on this black Wednesday was nothing short of catastrophic."
Hindu: "India were rolled over for 100 courtesy of a frenzied passage of play in the second session that witnessed a capitulation like few others."
The hosts were skittled for a paltry 100 to go down by 212 runs, with the last seven wickets falling for just 25.
"Too much one-day cricket and too much shuffling of the batting order has had an adverse effect on confidence," Gavaskar wrote in the Hindustan Times.
"It is not just the defeat but the manner of losing without a semblance of a fight that needs examination."
Former Test opener Kris Srikkanth was even more scathing, saying in his column in The Asian Age: "This abject surrender was a disgrace.
"Lacking the will to fight it out for a draw was a clear pointer that India have a long way to go to lay claim on the number two spot in Test cricket.
"It was a pathetic batting display by India with the famed top-order showing no real resistance."
All the Indian newspapers praised England's efforts, particularly the leadership of stand-in captain Andrew Flintoff.
And they were unanimous in their damning verdict on India's performance:
Times of India: "India tamely crashed on Wednesday to their seventh lowest total...100 runs is all that some of the world's best batsmen made among themselves in an embarrassing day for Indian cricket."
Hindistan Times: "How could a team with an accomplished batting line-up collapse from 75/3 to 100 all out in a mere 74 minutes after lunch? It's a question that will always haunt our minds."
Indian Express: "India lost much of their credibility as a contender for the number one slot...in a display of the most senseless and spineless batting by Rahul Dravid's team in recent times."
Asian Age: "It was all over in a nightmarish haemorrhage of wickets. What happened here on this black Wednesday was nothing short of catastrophic."
Hindu: "India were rolled over for 100 courtesy of a frenzied passage of play in the second session that witnessed a capitulation like few others."
Had you lost this one you certainly would have looked back at previous results. You've avoided losing a third straight series, well done, stuff of champions indeed. I like how you have made up your mind that we are a team that have peaked and are now on a decline. Get this in your head, under Wright we had peaked and he had done all that he could for this and everything was getting stale. Now its Dravid and Chappel's turn and IMO they've started well, a little shakey in tests, but very well in ODIs.Spoony said:
There is barely anything between India and England. Its hilareous to see you guys reacting as if you've won the world cup. The English team's celebrations were as small time as it gets. The last time we toured England we too drew the test series, but the tour was a good one because we also won the ODI's. Start talking all this rubbish when you actually win a series on this tour, because you didnt on your last one either.
Anyone for Elephant Polo?
No. We beat Australia. Lost to Pakistan. So it would have been two straight series.amolbhatia100 said:
Did they not teach maths at school?
Ermm im not lying to anyone. If we had played like India normally does at home we would have battered England, just like Pakistan did. A few errors here and there, and some poor batting ruined it, but im not worried. Although it is amusing how you and some others want me to 'worry' about the state of Indian cricket.Dowders_Jnr said:
Lost the tests and one dayers in Pakistan. Managed to avoid losing a third straight series here and an embaressment. Well done.Slabber said:
Right....amolbhatia100 said:
So now series draws/victories/defeats include ODIs...
You're a desperate twat.
Weirdo. Both forms of cricket are obviously counted. You didnt just lose the tests in Pakistan, that would have been a bad tour. But you also lost the one dayers which made it a disaster.Slabber said:
You are laughable.amolbhatia100 said:
See, this is the type of poster, I can't be arsed debating with.amolbhatia100 said:
The fact remains, we drew in India. No ifs, buts and maybes. We drew without five, yes, five frontline players. We won a test match on a spinning wicket against 'the greatest spinners in the world TM'. . .after supposedly having players that couldn't play spin(ha ha ha). Udal, yes SHAUN fecking Udal bowled out your 'best players of spinners, ever TM'. Face it. You're just not that good. That's a fact. Look at your recent results and your ageing players, and it's not hard to see.
You're suffering from myopia.
Alrighty. But it doesnt change the fact that you did lose in both forms of the game in Pakistan. Nothing wrong in that, you've always got the last Ashes to fall back on.Slabber said:
amolbhatia100 said:
Pakistan are a very good side.
Unlike India.