Slabber said:
He did'nt have money to buy an underwear.
Ind vss England ODI's
- Thread starter vijay
- Start date
He did'nt have money to buy an underwear.
vijay said:
For no apparant reason.
Sultan said:
I can speak Pashto, Uzbeki and Mandarin.
and Turkish.
Spoony said:
That's fantastic - go find yourself a bride from one of those countries before the UK changes it's laws - she'll worship you.
Honestly.
Sultan said:
Afghan girls are very pretty.
And I've actually booked a holiday to Kandahar, for this autumn.
Spoony said:
Mullah Umar's home town - nice.
You might have to fake being a Muslim though - fake sheikh maybe!
If you need a reference you know where I am.
Sultan said:
I've grown a beard. I think that's a good start.
And I've always loved the idea of blowing people up.
I reckon I'd fit right in.
On a serious note, I would love to check out parts of Central Asia, Karakoram range, and parts of Iran one day.
Spoony said:
Iranian girls are beautiful - rather fanatical people though.
Wait till Dubya finishes his job before booking any flights.
I've just remembered this is the cricket forum (so sorry GB).
vijay said:
Bhenchod....This's the funniest thing in the thread.
Tiresome ghazal idiot.
Urdu (اردو) is an Indo-European language of the Indo-Aryan family that developed under Persian, Turkish, and Arabic influence in South Asia during the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire (1200-1800).
Taken by itself, Urdu is approximately the twentieth most populous natively spoken language in the world, and is the national language of Pakistan as well as one of the 24 national languages of India.
Wikpedia
Leave the sister out of this Don...
Taken by itself, Urdu is approximately the twentieth most populous natively spoken language in the world, and is the national language of Pakistan as well as one of the 24 national languages of India.
Wikpedia
Leave the sister out of this Don...
Looks like we may actually win this won, maybe.
All without the best player in the world playing too.
All without the best player in the world playing too.
Knighthoods all round.
England finally winning against an Indian Amateur XI.
Read Geoffrey's nice article on England's chances of winning the WC.
India better prepared for WC
England need to win a one-day game for a change
If you accuse someone of not trying, you have to prove it, says Geoffrey Boycott
I have been reading a few reports in the press about England's apparent lack of interest in the one-day game, so much so that they don't seem to be even trying to salvage a series already lost. The trouble is that if you accuse someone of not trying, you have to prove it, and I don't see how that can be done in this case. In fact, I think the opposite is true: rather than not trying, England are trying, but are simply not good enough.
Against this backdrop, it is easy to misinterpret Matthew Hoggard's comment about why winning the Ashes is more important than the World Cup or any other one-day international tournament, though not in so many words. From an Englishman's point of view, I understand why he said that. If you look in your history books, you will be able to count on one hand the number of times England have beaten Australia in Australia, and that goes for all teams.
Actually, with everyone trying to knock Australia off their perch, defeating them is such a huge event that when England won the Ashes last year at home after 18 years of being pathetic, anyone even remotely involved with the team got to go to the palace to meet the Queen. So, as I say, I understand why Hoggard thinks the challenge of beating Australia on their territory is a bigger one than winning the World Cup.
However, I also have to say that it isn't the smartest thing to say when your team has just been beaten 4-0 and is in danger of losing the remaining two games of the series. Not only does it sound as though England doesn't care too much about losing the ODI series, in a backhanded way, it somehow undermines the achievements of the Indian team.
He did not mean it
Now Hoggard is one of the nicest chaps you can meet and I'm sure he didn't mean his comment to sound the way it did, but it is an inescapable fact that India are far better prepared for the World Cup than England, and you can't put down a tournament as big as that casually, and neither can you dismiss the one-day game. In fact, I think England have got to get used to ODIs and to the fact that the World Cup is just round the corner.
No matter how big the Ashes, there will probably be more English spectators at the World Cup than those from three other countries taken together. The English keep going there on holiday, and I remember a Test in Barbados that almost felt like a home game because there were almost 8,000 English spectators in a 12,000-capacity ground. That is a big reason why England are playing all their World Cup games in St. Lucia, which has the highest capacity of all the grounds in the Caribbean. The organisers know that the ground will be packed with English fans.
Besides, after so many one-day defeats, losing has become a bad habit with the English side. It is all very well for Duncan Fletcher to say he knows his 10 best ODI players, but it is another matter altogether to get them on the field. No team has so many players flying home from a tour as England does, and they haven't bowled well in a one-day game for a while now — either at the start or at the death. No one has really replaced Darren Gough, who handled the tremendous pressure of bowling at the death with aplomb, unlike Hoggard and Steve Harmison, who are length bowlers and get smashed during the closing stages of a match.
Going into the heat and dust of Jamshedpur, it wouldn't hurt England to win a one-day game for a change. They can't keep treating one-day cricket like a poor cousin of the longer version, and Fletcher, who never played an international Test but featured in six ODIs, should be the one to explain that to them.
Read Geoffrey's nice article on England's chances of winning the WC.
India better prepared for WC
England need to win a one-day game for a change
If you accuse someone of not trying, you have to prove it, says Geoffrey Boycott
I have been reading a few reports in the press about England's apparent lack of interest in the one-day game, so much so that they don't seem to be even trying to salvage a series already lost. The trouble is that if you accuse someone of not trying, you have to prove it, and I don't see how that can be done in this case. In fact, I think the opposite is true: rather than not trying, England are trying, but are simply not good enough.
Against this backdrop, it is easy to misinterpret Matthew Hoggard's comment about why winning the Ashes is more important than the World Cup or any other one-day international tournament, though not in so many words. From an Englishman's point of view, I understand why he said that. If you look in your history books, you will be able to count on one hand the number of times England have beaten Australia in Australia, and that goes for all teams.
Actually, with everyone trying to knock Australia off their perch, defeating them is such a huge event that when England won the Ashes last year at home after 18 years of being pathetic, anyone even remotely involved with the team got to go to the palace to meet the Queen. So, as I say, I understand why Hoggard thinks the challenge of beating Australia on their territory is a bigger one than winning the World Cup.
However, I also have to say that it isn't the smartest thing to say when your team has just been beaten 4-0 and is in danger of losing the remaining two games of the series. Not only does it sound as though England doesn't care too much about losing the ODI series, in a backhanded way, it somehow undermines the achievements of the Indian team.
He did not mean it
Now Hoggard is one of the nicest chaps you can meet and I'm sure he didn't mean his comment to sound the way it did, but it is an inescapable fact that India are far better prepared for the World Cup than England, and you can't put down a tournament as big as that casually, and neither can you dismiss the one-day game. In fact, I think England have got to get used to ODIs and to the fact that the World Cup is just round the corner.
No matter how big the Ashes, there will probably be more English spectators at the World Cup than those from three other countries taken together. The English keep going there on holiday, and I remember a Test in Barbados that almost felt like a home game because there were almost 8,000 English spectators in a 12,000-capacity ground. That is a big reason why England are playing all their World Cup games in St. Lucia, which has the highest capacity of all the grounds in the Caribbean. The organisers know that the ground will be packed with English fans.
Besides, after so many one-day defeats, losing has become a bad habit with the English side. It is all very well for Duncan Fletcher to say he knows his 10 best ODI players, but it is another matter altogether to get them on the field. No team has so many players flying home from a tour as England does, and they haven't bowled well in a one-day game for a while now — either at the start or at the death. No one has really replaced Darren Gough, who handled the tremendous pressure of bowling at the death with aplomb, unlike Hoggard and Steve Harmison, who are length bowlers and get smashed during the closing stages of a match.
Going into the heat and dust of Jamshedpur, it wouldn't hurt England to win a one-day game for a change. They can't keep treating one-day cricket like a poor cousin of the longer version, and Fletcher, who never played an international Test but featured in six ODIs, should be the one to explain that to them.
nice article. i like Boycott.
An understrengthed Indian team losts quite easily to an understrengthed England team.
Oh and I told you Bell should be in this team.
lostDubai_Devil said:
crappycraperson said:
Yes you did, quite badly as well.
Dubai_Devil said:
is that supposed to mean that if all were fit and playing and not bug-bitten then england would have won the series?
mehro said:
You never know, IMO England would have won the test but lost the ODIs, it would have been a lot closer though.
IMO India should have won the Test series against the England sqaud they played. they really screwed up there. against an all fit english team I would have expected a drawn series in India but a an Indian loss back in England. as for ODIs think India can beat just about any team as of now, not 4 matches in a row but yeah they'd take the series against anyone except SA and the aussies, which would be close.
mehro said:
This depleted England team were the better team throughout the series, and a full strength bowling attack and some more experience in the batting would have won England the series IMO.
Although saying that this is all a bit academic.
Dubai_Devil said:
one of us was obviously watching a series from another dimension. in the one i saw india was by far the better one.
mehro said:
That's because you're biased.
Dubai_Devil said:
That's because you are biased.
India are crap at the proper stuff.
Shite even on their own turf.
Shite even on their own turf.
mehro said:
I'm not biased, you, like many other Indian supporters are.
I think we've been here before.
The first match was draw, England had the better of it.
The second match was quite even, until England had that collapse in their second innings.
The third match England were the better team.
Therefore, the depleted England team were the better team overall during the series.
Ok.Spoony said:
And Dubai, that biased crap is pretty dumb.Why the feck would I support England or defend them.
Dubai_Devil said:
oh forget it, i am biased, a little maybe. but i'm also very critical of the indian team when they play like shite. but right now they're playing really well and i really do think that india was the better team. also most english fans have this thing against ODIs. it's true that test matches are a far bigger challenge than ODIs but it's not hard to see that over the last few years ODIs have become the far more exciting form of cricket to watch. and while the english might feel bitter, for despite being the ones to have given birth to the game they've never won the world cup; for everyone else the world cup is a huge deal, even bigger than the ashes really.
DONADO said:
When I say biased I mean you can't give a clear and honest account of things.
mehro said:
Gay.
Spoony said:
what an argument! god how i do come up with a retort for that one. will twat do?
twat.
mehro said:
Gayer.
Dubai_Devil said:
yeah, and apparently Struass = Captain Marvel
oh feck dravid. it's 5 am here and i was staying up to watch his 100. buger got it.
wrong decision. this is just great.
ok just saw the replay. close one.
ok just saw the replay. close one.
India are 167/2 chasing 289 for victory with just over 20 overs remaining.
chappel and dravid are gonna have some selection problems now. too many players performing. will be interesting to see who they pick between sehwag and uthappa.