Thankfully it was 320 rather than 20.
Cricket:India's tour of England 2011
- Thread starter The Taurean
- Start date
Thankfully it was 320 rather than 20.
You mean the Ozzies wouldn't stand a chance I hope? I would have liked to have seen Shane Warne's grin when facing Michael Holding coming down on him. They were the best batting, bowling and fielding side ever bar none.
WI team was better
I reckon it would've been a close game. The Aussies were more mentally tougher and had better fielding, whereas the Windies had more flair and natural talent.
Depends on the pitch and how effective Warne would be.
I reckon Windies would do'em on a flat deck.
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Steve Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Lee
Gillespie
Who am I missing from this team?
I think Clarke and Hussey were after Steve Waugh's captaincy.
Langer
Ponting
Steve Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Lee
Gillespie
Who am I missing from this team?
I think Clarke and Hussey were after Steve Waugh's captaincy.
Mark Waugh?
Damien Martyn?
Damien Martyn?
Apart from the batting and the fast bowling in which I think the great Auz team would have a slight edge, the Warne factor is massive. Swan's a very good bowler, Warne is the best ever.
Also Slater played more than Langer.
Nah Windies pace attack is way better, also I will back their batsmen to handle McGrath and Gillispie. Only Warne would be a threat to them.
Also it to tough to write down a set Oz 11 which dominated lot of players rotated in and out.. these were the key ones though:
Hayden
Pointing
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Gillispie
You can probably add Langer to that.
Hayden
Pointing
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Gillispie
You can probably add Langer to that.
I didn't say it wasn't better - in fact no team has assembled a better pace battery. And I actually saw that side...they were a pleasure to watch, everything from the team to the fans. Cricket at its finest.
Glen Mcgrath wouldn't have been a threat to them?
He was a threat to every great batsman of his era (which were many) so of course he'd be a threat to the great West Indies side. They'd have to be on top of their game to deal with him.
I reckon he would've caused them major problems on a wicket that gave assistance.
Well those Windies batsmen were facing likes of Holding, Marshall regularly in nets and first class cricket back in WI. Almost every other team has struggled against Warne, except us, why is that?
Yup. To be fair Mcgrath, unless having a bad day, would give anyone problems.
That's an exception. You can't take an exception and apply it elsewhere. Also Mcgrath wasn't an all out quick which they had loads of practice against. He was completely different. He was all about dropping the ball on the perfect line and length and making it do just about enough to cause hell. That's actually very hard to toy with like we did with Warne.
That is an exception because our players come through facing quality spin bowlers from get go. How I am I applying it everywhere? Am I saying no good team would have problem against McGrath? Pick any best Indian well, they will struggle against him for sure. Those Windies batsmen did fine against like of Lillie, Hadlee and others. Mcgrath would do damage against them but they would not be overaly worried *** him.
The 80s side struggled against Imran and co. Their bowling was much better than their batting, aside from Richards, I'd say the Aussie batsmen were as good if not better but Windies had a much better bowling line-up. Which is why I said they'd beat Australian on a flat deck - the likes of Holding et al could extract pace and bounce from the flatest tracks, whereas McGrath didn't look half the bowler on a featherbed, he didn't have the pace/reverse swing to trouble good batsmen on those types of wickets. Warne was a different kettle of fish, and they've never looked clever against leg spin...even in the 80s.
Shastri lost his cool and consequently looked like a right muppet, not good.
I don't really get opposition to the DRS. Its (rightly) balanced very much in favour of the on field umpire's call, so I can't really imagine where a correct decision would ever be overturned. All its doing is correcting some if not all of the incorrect decisions, which is surely better than nothing.
I thought Shastri was level headed but that was just vitriolic. Kudos to Hussein for not getting involved.
As Atherton pointed out -the Indian batsmen love playing with their pads so are more prone to LBW decisions.
Completely lost the plot there. Other commentators should take a cue from Ganguly who does his job fantastically. Always makes sense with what he says and doesn't get involved in nationalistic emotional drivel.
And while it doesn't make Shastri's ranting on national tv correct, I don't know what Hussain's wording of the 'disgrace' sentence was exactly.
Hussain said that the refusal to use UDRS by India is a disgrace, complete over-reaction by Shastri it seems.
Nasser is of Indian origin, and still has a soft spot for India. You can easily detect it when ever he comments on India.
England jealous of India being world #1, world champions? Complete and utter drivel. What is 'England'? The English team? the people? the ECB? Does he not realize that the views of a lone journalist writing in a newspaper reflect the views of one person out of millions?
He's an obnoxious high handed twat, personifies a lot of the things that the BCCI does.
Hussein was a little over-the-top calling it a 'disgrace', but Shastri's reaction was almost borderline bigotry.
The strangest thing is all the people on my facebook list who are hailing Shastri as some kind of champion of the masses, sticking it up to the former imperial masters. We really do have some stupid people in India and just about every one of them follows cricket. They never miss an opportunity for some flag-waving, losing all sense of objectivity.
Shastri has always been pro- BCCI and listening to him and Gavaskar sometimes feel like you're listening to BCCI Spokepersons. However I don't necessarily disagree with Ravi here, I've been reading the British online newspapers and some english pundits like Atherton and it's very clear that they all are hypocrites.
They had no problem with the dominance of ECB/ACB but suddenly when BCCI has started dominating ICC, there is suddenly an opinion of "one board shouldn't dominate the whole world" and they've started criticizing BCCI on every turn. I think it's very obvious if one organizations generates 80 percent of the revenue, then they'll have monopoly.
I laugh when people here say that ICC should show BCCI their own place, they can't do because 80% of their revenue comes from the Indian Zone.
The thing is that the BCCI seems to be taking cricket in a direction which people in England don't want it to go, with a focus on money and loads of matches, constant advertising and loads of limited overs cricket. This goes against what many in England feel is good for the game, and they will therefore of course criticize the BCCI for taking the game in this direction.
Why did the ECB took part in the Stanford series then?
India declined the invitation however England readily took part in the series and even signed a contract which was only terminated because Standford turned out to be a fraud.
Bizarre isn't it? I guess it's symptomatic of the uneasy post-colonial relationship and modern globalisation.
Cricket as a whole is a good case in point for this. It is a British game exported to the Empire which has grown so much in India, to the point of having totally dominated the native culture. I think that's probably why there's so much over-eager defence of Indian cricket and pointless nationalism... it stems from a guilt complex at having abandoned one's traditional culture and past-times to play the game of your former colonial masters. The vitriol is just over-compensating for it. It's a shame really but all part of the westernisation of the world I guess.
If you want to 'stick it to your former imperial masters', go and play kabaddi and embrace traditional Indian culture.
And also wasn't that final match also hailed as the richest prize in cricketing history for the winner?
ECB are jealous of BCCI, no question about it. Only reason why they are not a partner in CL T20 tournament and only reason they got mugged by Standford. Playing in that tournament was much more greedy than IPL, million dollar matches and what not.
Yup, it really is embarassing stuff. That video's a disgrace. If Hussain ranted like that, the same people would've gone mental in response.
And so much for England never being 'blaady no.1' in the word.
Gavaskar was banging on about sportsmanship and cricket being a 'gentleman's game'..
Nah, no guilt complex. Excess vitriol isn't restricted to cricket in India, you just need to watch an Indian news channel.
Stanford was an embarrassment and has been roundly criticised, rightly so.