mehro said:
He's also a cretin.
Ind vss England ODI's
- Thread starter vijay
- Start date
He's also a cretin.
england is not a cricket powerhouse anymore.
Q: Why do people on the subcontinent think they own cricket?
A: Because, unfortunately, they do.
A: Because, unfortunately, they do.
mehro said:
Of course it is. We're the 5th largest economy in the world.
We're also the home of cricket, and we don't wear nappies.
Slabber said:
seriously, get over the nappies stuff. it isn't even remotely funny.
if you're gonna get into the monetary side of things, more money is poured into cricket from india than anywhere else.
mehro said:
Mainly to dodgy bookmakers...
Slabber said:
weak.
anyway, if you don't enjoy ODI cricket you can choose to ignore it. since I enjoy it I can gloat over India's win.
mehro said:
But who are you gloating to?
The English don't give a feck.
But we're very amused by India's away Test match record.
this is how you average 37 posts per day. you won't let the topic end. i said i don't give a shit what you think but you have to come around tryin to tickle me. i'm glad the indian test record amuses you. i hope it makes you laugh out loud. i think it's a rather crappy record too. i enjoy watching ODI cricket and i'm bloodly pleased about this last series win. and i don't give a feck that you don't give a feck.
Well I don't give a feck that you don't give a feck that I don't give a feck. Where does it end?
right here. you see, the series is over and we both don't have to argue over something that we don't give a feck about.
Only Asian's think ODIs mean anything significant.
Just thought i'd keep the argument going.
Just thought i'd keep the argument going.
If England won the ODI World Cup it would be trumpeted as the greatest vistory since WWII.
The world cup is bigger than the Ashes to Australians maybe not to the English as you haven't won it yet.Slabber said:
You think?
It was like a death in the family around here when England won.
It was like a death in the family around here when England won.
Dubai_Devil said:
Only the English think ODI's are insignificant.
Both versions of the game are equally good.
What would it be like if England won the world cup in the final against Australia though?Wibble said:
Not good.
I'd be alright because I could revert to being a Pom.
The Rugby World Cup Final was a deeply conflicted even for me. Odd to be cheering for both sides.
Football is the only sport where I am still more of a Pom than an Aussie. Strange.
I'd be alright because I could revert to being a Pom.
The Rugby World Cup Final was a deeply conflicted even for me. Odd to be cheering for both sides.
Football is the only sport where I am still more of a Pom than an Aussie. Strange.
Glory hunterWibble said:
Maybe you are more a Pom than an Aussie in football because Australia really do struggle in football and you haven't really had any tantalising fooball to watch when Australia have been playing.
Slabber said:
As worse as England's home record
Yep, After the 1987 Ashes win it was humiliation for England all the way...home or away..
England were pathetic for the next 15 or so yeears. Have never been anywhere near the best side in the world either home and away. Atleast India continued to win at home.vijay said:
heffa said:
Correct
vijay said:
I remember going to England v India at Lords in 1990, where Graham Gooch got 333 and Alan Lamb got 139. Robin Smith got 100 not out.
Kapil Dev hit four consequtive sixes off Eddie Hemmings to avoid the follow-on, but England won anyway.
Well done India.
One test doesn't make a good national cricket team. You have only recently started to become a good test nation again over the last few years. Shane Warne could of single handedly won the ashes for about 6 years there. He has average about 19 or so over the past 6 ashes series against you which shows you couldn't even handle one world class spin bowler let alone a complete attack.Slabber said:
heffa said:
Our home record has remained decent against the lesser sides, even during the 1990s.
I get the impression you don't know very much about cricket.
I'm an expert.
I hope this helps.
I know alot about cricket, your home record in the 1990's against lesser sides is always going to be atleast decent. Your were always going to be better than some of the struggling nations. If you didn't beat Zimbabwe or Bangledesh in the 1990's it was a big failure. Sure you would of won about 40% of your home test but that was nothing compared to India, West Indies, South Africa or Australia.Slabber said:
heffa said:
Bangladesh didn't have test status in the 1990s. You wouldn't know that because you're a bluffer.
india were shit in the 90's. new zealand level.
Just checked it i was only about 6 months off as according to cricinfo.com the played their first test just after mid-way in 2000. I can never remember dates well. I thought they played their first test in 1999.Slabber said:
The Indians don't travel well, which is ironic considering that every country they go to is much nicer than their own...
If their away record was even close to their home record they would be the best side in the world. When Australia won a test series in India recently all the media was about how long it was since our last win in India. I can't remember how long it was but it was over 30 years.Slabber said:
Slabber said:
86
England 1-2 India (Eng)
91
England 1 -0 India (Eng)
93
England 0 - 3 India (Ind)
96
England 1- 0 India (Eng)
2002
England 1-1 India (Eng)
2006
England 1-1 India (Ind)
So basically England have managed to beat Inida in 5 tests in the last 20 years and lost 7 with the remaining drawn.Even their home victories were just 1-0 wins. India has drawn more tests in England than England in India
India dominated against England in 2002 and also in 96, if not for a freak win the first test. If not for poor umpiring and weather it should've been 1-1 in 96 and 2-1 2002
Overall wins
Overseas wins India -3 and England 1
Overall India-7 England-5.
India > England @ both overseas and home..
Your argument stinks....
heffa said:
Even if Bangladesh's first test had been played in 1999 it would hardly have left much room for England to play Bangladesh in the 1990's...
vijay said:
Nice selective use of stats there Vijay. Can you provide us with a list of India's all time away series victories?
It shouldn't take very long.
vijay said:
England won the first test by 170 runs.
England had the better of the second test draw with excellent rearguard innings by Ganguly, Dravid and Tendulkar needed on the last two days to secure the draw after England had a first innings lead of 260.
India won the third by an innings and 46 runs.
Test match four was played on a flat-track with both teams getting scores of over 500 in their first innings. England had a lead of 121 with 10 second-innings wickets intact when rain washed out the final day. Hardly as if rain saved England from imminant defeat.
I'd hardly say India dominated the series.
Vijay lives in a fantasy world.
My crappy opinion on the topic is:
India > England in 1990's and early 2000's.
At present - England slightly better than India at Tests. India much better than England at ODIs.
India > England in 1990's and early 2000's.
At present - England slightly better than India at Tests. India much better than England at ODIs.
1 billion people and they can't produce a quality side. Nevermind always being shit away from home.
Have you got a new keyboard yet?