Having been a pathetic ODI side for decades, England should be happy to take any WC win they canI really wish it was India we beat on boundaries and not NZ. Would've been even more satisfying watching the meltdown in this thread.
Totally agreed.There is absolutely nothing wrong in having sympathy for New Zealand, it is a brutal way to lose any game let alone a WC final . Having said that don't make it seem like they were robbed or England stole it in any way . The idea should be to discuss that this is probably not the best rule and maybe the ICC should consider changing it for future but saying rubbish like how the better team lost and trophy should be shared now is just embarrassing and that is what some of these journalists are doing
These are some Indian journalists who have also praised this england side and called them deserving champions.
Having been a pathetic ODI side for decades, England should be happy to take any WC win they can
Thanks for these. Enjoyed reading. Please post any more you come across.
The pathetic ODI side for decades has won as many world cups as you lot over the last two decades. I really don't get where the indian superiority complex comes from.
These are some Indian journalists who have also praised this england side and called them deserving champions.
Not only the last 4 years, during the tournament they won all their must win games under pressure, can't take anyone seriously saying they didn't deserve it and like the saying goes you make your own luck.Totally agreed.
England are deserved champions, for having been the best team in the tournament, and No 1 in ODI rankings for past few years. For example, since the 2015 World Cup, England have won 71% of their ODI games, the best ODI win percentage amongst all teams.
The pathetic ODI side for decades has won as many world cups as you lot over the last two decades. I really don't get where the indian superiority complex comes from.
Calm down. It’s too easy to wind people up on hereMe neither!
The pathetic ODI side for decades has won as many world cups as you lot over the last two decades. I really don't get where the indian superiority complex comes from.
I'm I right, that India have prioritised ODI over tests for a long time? That's how I remember it growing up.... do you watch cricket? We've been better at ODIs than England for almost 30 years and even now, at their incredible best, we're not miles away. Heck, by the time we played them a few days back, we were considered the favourites.
I'm I right, that India have prioritised ODI over tests for a long time? That's how I remember it growing up.
Up until 2014, yeah we did. Since then, we've been determined to be the best in the longer forms. The Indian 2008-2011 team was the best I've ever seen and they were doing, 10 years ago, what England do now. Have a look at that tour:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cricket_team_in_New_Zealand_in_2008–09
Gambhir was a beast in that tour. You are right the 2008-2011 circa was the best period for India in ODIs. The way we prepared for 2011 wc was really good. Slowly grooming Kohli to be the next big thing. Sad how we became complacent after 2013 Champions trophy. We have been decent but we should have won more major trophies.
... do you watch cricket? We've been better at ODIs than England for almost 30 years and even now, at their incredible best, we're not miles away. Heck, by the time we played them a few days back, we were considered the favourites.
What part of my statement is wrong?
What part of my statement is wrong?
The part where you decided that winning a World Cup is the only measure to determine whether a team is good or not.
Had it not been for a stupidly over powered Australian side, we may have won 3 WCs.
If anything he's proven your point.
India have been miles better than England at ODI for the last 30 years and yet we've both won 1 World Cup in that time.
India have underachieved really, they should be dominant in limited overs cricket especially.
If anything he's proven your point.
India have been miles better than England at ODI for the last 30 years and yet we've both won 1 World Cup in that time.
India have underachieved really, they should be dominant in limited overs cricket especially.
Had it not been for a stupidly dominant Australia side, we would have won 2 more as well. If and buts count for jack shit.
Its funny how they were clowning england for celebrating being number one in the ODI ranking and now are using the same metric for their team.
The part where you decided that winning a World Cup is the only measure to determine whether a team is good or not.
Had it not been for a stupidly over powered Australian side, we may have won 3 WCs.
Does this mean both national football teams are at the same level since neither have a won a major tournament in 50 years?
Arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall.
If you look through this recent debate - its not been about how India are the best. Its the fact that we've always been levels above India. Learn to read.
Wait, wasn't this the EXACT argument being used to discredit England's last 4 years when it looked like they wouldn't win the World Cup?!
Difference between 2019 and everyother year is that there wasnt a power house Australian side in the way.
Why should we be so dominant? Our bowling till now has always been inconsistent.
Difference between 2019 and everyother year is that there wasnt a power house Australian side in the way.
Why should we be so dominant? Our bowling till now has always been inconsistent.
And yet you guys didn't even make it to the finals.
I can't believe that I'm reading a story today suggesting that there should be an option for future World Cups to be shared.
How can you possibly suggest that such a major international tournament won't have an outright winner? How do you celebrate only winning 50% of the trophy?!
There should always be contingency plans for draws/ ties and let's be honest there's a good chance we might never see anything like that in a final again anyway.
Personally I think replaying the super over until there is a winner would be better than boundary count but as long as every country is aware of the rules & regulations at the start of the tournament that's all that matters.
To say that all the teams can work so hard for 4 years to have to share the trophy is ludicrous.
If anything he's proven your point.
India have been miles better than England at ODI for the last 30 years and yet we've both won 1 World Cup in that time.
India have underachieved really, they should be dominant in limited overs cricket especially.
Well if there was no powerhouse Australian side in your way why didn't you win it? Why didn't you even make the final?
I don't get what your overall point is. Are you trying to say, between say 96-2015, we werent consistently better than England in ODIs?
Sounds like India have replaced South Africa as the chokers of cricket
Well if there was no powerhouse Australian side in your way why didn't you win it? Why didn't you even make the final?
That I dont know why you are harping about dominant australian sides and how that cost you two world cups. Just sounds like sour grapes.
But it does not make India a crap or any less team. It is all fine margins. Kohli could have easily been given not out or had we survived the first 5 overs we could have cake walked to 240. NZ for the first 10 over brought their A game and were rewarded for their efforts. Similarly they actually bowled really well in the first 5 overs against England but they were not rewarded.And yet you guys didn't even make it to the finals.
I thought you said India and Australia were the best teams in this tournament. Why didn't you win it if not Australia? You're a walking contradiction.Because we're not that good. Its something posters including myself have constantly stated throughout this thread. Check the prediction thread and who I said would win the WC - should give you an idea.
The part where you decided that winning a World Cup is the only measure to determine whether a team is good or not.
Had it not been for a stupidly over powered Australian side, we may have won 3 WCs.
Does this mean both national football teams are at the same level since neither have a won a major tournament in 50 years?