Game over at 4 down you would assume. 1-1 then.
India v England ODI series
- Thread starter Donaldo
- Start date
B Kumar seems a good find, hope he develops and kicks on.
Thanks England.
When England lose, they don't half get battered
Old skool performance 
Since the WC, Dhoni averages 83 at a strike rate of 93.. what the feck
I've been telling you cnuts that Jadeja is a good player.
Let's hope Bhuvneshwar Kumar doesn't depreciate as a bowler.
Let's hope Bhuvneshwar Kumar doesn't depreciate as a bowler.
England were dreadful today. Dhoni is on fire at ODI at the moment. Dernbach is too wayward. England need to sort themselves out for the next one.
I was looking at the scores for the Ranji quarter final games that finished a week or two back and was shocked to find that in one of the games Mumbai batted for 204 overs and till the 3rd day morning in their first innings. Only one of the four games gave a result and the rest of the teams won on first innings. It made me go and check the rules, which state that teams that take a first innings lead win the game.
What the feck!
Firstly, the matches are being played on flat decks with 600+ scores the norm. Who would want to be a bowler in India? The pitches are so far in favor of the batsmen that it almost discourages it. How are the batsmen supposed to learn to play good spin or swing bowling when you are brought up playing on these flat decks?
Secondly, how is this supposed to encourage any competition? You are literally batting the opposition out the game. The focus is not on winning the game but to get a first innings lead. No wonder we are found out in tough situations more often than not. Our cricketers are not prepared to take any pressure. Isn't the point of domestic competitions to prepare cricketers for the international stage?
We should thank our stars that our cricketers are blessed with natural ability and talent as the domestic competitions are fecking shit!
What the feck!
Firstly, the matches are being played on flat decks with 600+ scores the norm. Who would want to be a bowler in India? The pitches are so far in favor of the batsmen that it almost discourages it. How are the batsmen supposed to learn to play good spin or swing bowling when you are brought up playing on these flat decks?
Secondly, how is this supposed to encourage any competition? You are literally batting the opposition out the game. The focus is not on winning the game but to get a first innings lead. No wonder we are found out in tough situations more often than not. Our cricketers are not prepared to take any pressure. Isn't the point of domestic competitions to prepare cricketers for the international stage?
We should thank our stars that our cricketers are blessed with natural ability and talent as the domestic competitions are fecking shit!
Now if he could bat like that more consistently I wouldn't spend half my time moaning about how shit he is
Yea. It's one match amidst a host of failures.
Even if he can bat like that consistently, he's going to be useful in ODIs here. Where else is he gonna play? The next WC and Champions Trophy are both in conditions favouring quicks.
He might do alright, but do you really think he'll do better than bat at #7?
If he can bowl some medium pace, he'd be a cracking asset for our side, but at the moment, he's going to feature in largely insignificant ODIs at home.
Even if he can bat like that consistently, he's going to be useful in ODIs here. Where else is he gonna play? The next WC and Champions Trophy are both in conditions favouring quicks.
He might do alright, but do you really think he'll do better than bat at #7?
If he can bowl some medium pace, he'd be a cracking asset for our side, but at the moment, he's going to feature in largely insignificant ODIs at home.
Pretty much. The only way he's going to make the team on a consistent basis is by massively improving his batting.
He still doesn't convince me. Technique looks very suspect and he still doesn't look anything like a test cricket player.
He is not. Will go down as one of the worst players to have played test cricket for India
I know, thats one of the most stupid rules i've seen in my life. It basically encourages players/teams to not even think of a win, just bat long.
England batting poorly again. Bowling isn't even threatening, Root showing how to bat. Just hope they can bat 50 overs and post something contestable.
Jadeja is still only 24 and has clearly developed his batting and bowling. We've an habit of writing off cricketers too quickly. He's already a good player in ODI's, won't be surprised if he makes the step up to test cricket. As a bowler, Ashwin isn't really that much better than him.
Yeah he looks good as a ODI player. Good batting, bowling and fielding. Should be useful for the test team as an all rounder. Not really sure about Ashwin myself.
Dreadful from England, poor shot selections.
That's why I said England aren't a great ODI side. Their batting after the top order is pretty average. Eoin Morgan is usually a class act but that was a retarded shot.
They're a perfect side for fast wickets.
Besides, don't forget that Trott will slot back in and halt the wicket slide.
Kieswetter needs to go, though.
Besides, don't forget that Trott will slot back in and halt the wicket slide.
Kieswetter needs to go, though.
Ashwin is a good cricketer. At the moment, I see contradiction in his bowling due to playing too much cricket. He is not adjusting well from tests to T20 to ODI's. The start-stop run-up irritates the hell out of me. It might not be a bad idea to develop him only for Tests's and ODI's. He has potential to turn into an excellent bowler with a talent for batting.
The commentators keep harping on about The Prasanna's, the Bedi's, the Venkat's, I don't know why we don't employ them to help spinners like Ashwin. He is young and talented, hopefully we'll get him the right guidance.
Yeah I've forgotten about Trott. Still I don't see them as good ODI side. I think we'll be up there. SA look great and Aussies will bounce back.
Why doesn't Prior play ODI's?
ICC should look to revise their methodology for the ranking system. England was ranked no.1 in the world before the series began. I am afraid to say that this is not the No.1 team.
These rankings make the idiots at FIFA look like geniuses.
These rankings make the idiots at FIFA look like geniuses.
Lol, we were no.1? 
I think even us Englishmen will admit we should be no where near the no.1 rank.
I think even us Englishmen will admit we should be no where near the no.1 rank.
It's hard to blame the ICC for anything. Fact of the matter is there is no clear no. 1 team in the world right now. Till about 2007 you had Australia who were head and shoulders above everyone but that's no longer the case now with everyone capable of beating the other.
How good was Virat today
I am not exactly sure how they calculate these rankings but my guess is that it is a simplistic win/loss - home/away calculation. The rankings should include more variables than that:
(1) Playing conditions
(2) Margin of victory
(3) Strength of the opposition - in home and away conditions (India might the no.1 team but are they no.1 away from home?)
(4) The importance of a win (A loss at 3-0 up in a 5 match series shouldn't be the same as at 2-1)
(5) Wins in series or tournaments should get different points.
etc. Are some of the things they should include when calculating the rankings.
I really don't agree with this.
1. Don't see any reason to include this. Teams play each other in a home/away basis in a 3 year period so I don't see any reason to include this.
2. I really don't see how this makes any difference at all. And this could lead to the possibility of having games where one team scores 400 and the other team settles for a nice and comfortable score of 250 to reduce the margin of deficit rather than going after the total.
3. This is a very idealistic approach and is never going to happen.
4. Irrelevant in my opinion.
5. I am not sure what you mean here? If you are suggesting more points for winning an ICC event (i.e the World cup) then I agree.
I don't see much wrong with the current system. And the number of the points you earn for a win depends on the quality of opposition. So Kenya would earn far more points for beating India than India would for beating Kenya which is the right way to go about things.
It think it should be included. Players are adjudged on the basis of their performances on different pitches, it should be the same for the teams. A number 1 or number 2 should be able to perform in all conditions.
No one in cricket plays for rankings. It is not as if any draft position is going to be determined by rankings. If you are trashing teams by 150 runs or nine wickets every other game than that should get more weightage.
The point is that should happen. How can a victory over Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka worth the same points as a victory over India in India, when we are much more dominant at home.
It can happen if we consider every game after a series win as a friendly and allot points accordingly. What is the point of playing another game after a series win anyways. It is relevant.
Yes, that and more points for winning a knock-out game than say a needless group game.
The current system is ridiculous. How can India or England or any team for that matter proclaim to be number 1 when they have played most of their games at home? India became no.1 on the basis of winning some pointless series against weaker opposition. We even arranged a series against Australia at home so as not to lose the number 1 ranking. It's preposterous. They should either just scrap the rankings or make them more meaningful. The rankings should reflect an accurate standing of each team in the world.
What you are suggesting is equivalent to Barcelona getting more points because they won away on a substandard pitch. If team performs in all conditions then their points will reflect it.
Well if no one plays for ranking then why are so bothered with the system anyway. The margin of the victory should play no role at all, it's ludicrous to even suggest that.
I can see what you are saying but I like I said above if you do well both home and away your points will reflect it. To use another footballing analogy - Whether you win home or away you still get the same number of points even if winning away is a lot tougher.
Why restrict the importance of the game at all? Don't see the point at all to this. A win should be treated as such and it shouldn't matter whether you are tied 2-2 or leading 3-0.
It's not ridiculous at all. It has its flaws but overall it works. The same ranking system had Australia on top for 5 years in a row and there was nothing wrong with that. Since then the changes in the number 1 team reflect that the fact that while the teams are good there is no standout team in the world.
This is about cricket not Barcelona. You have to look at the performances in different conditions. The three year period would be a better judge if you play every team, home and away in that period. Now, you can arrange all your games on flat decks against sub-standard opposition and be number 1. Which is nonsense.
That is why I am saying scrap the system. It is not reflecting anything. Just some nonsense based on win and losses, which is a very narrow way of looking at things. I think that you don't want a system with proper rankings is more ludicrous.
You get more weightage for an away goal. Which is what I am saying. Cricket is different than football, you cannot use analogies from that sport. Only 10 teams play cricket and it should not be hard to rank them.
It should. A game after a series win is nothing but a glorified friendly. Either that or they shouldn't even play a games after a series win. Other than money, what is the point?
It works in which sense? What good are these rankings doing? Australia were number 1, you didn't need a system to tell you that. But now, as you rightly said, there is no dominant team, so rankings become more important - if they are accurate.
The thing is that ICC is a useless body. Commerce decides how series are arranged. If they had any sense, they would make a program in which each team would play against the other, both home and away, in a specified time period. The number of games in a series should be a fixed number too. Isn't that the way it is done in football, your favorite analogy. Barcelona do not become number 1 in Spain by virtue of playing some lower half team 10 times in a season. They play the same number of games against each team in the league both home and away, innit?
I really disagree with all of your points but this is a particularly strange one. By giving less points to such games the ICC would themselves be making such games pointless which makes no sense to me. IF teams want to relax after 3 games then that's their problem.
All right then why is England being top wrong? As far as I can remember they have won series's against India, Pakistan, Australia, West Indies and drew with SA. I can't think of any team who has done better
Right now, what is the point other than money? Teams care about rankings or filling their coffers now?
So, you think that they are the number 1 team in the world? Did you agree when India cut a 7 match one-day series against the Aussies to include two tests in order to remain number 1?
Only way to make the rankings work is to ensure each team plays each other twice, home and away, within a "season". Like the Test Championship they were planning some time back.
Exactly. As of now it's just bullshit.
They could add some variables to make them better but it's ICC - the less expected of them, the better.
Well I personally think there is no need for rankings when there are only about 10 teams that play the game anyway. The only benefits are money and a trophy.
There is no undisputed number 1 team in the world imo but England have had the best results (unless someone corrects me) over the past year or so, so they deserve to be on top.
There is no undisputed number 1 team in the world imo but England have had the best results (unless someone corrects me) over the past year or so, so they deserve to be on top.
Damn! we are back to square one. That is what I am saying, you get number 1 ranking for just playing these days. Like India did with the test ranking. Simply looking at the win/loss column is a futile exercise in determining the number 1 team.
Who do you think should be number 1 then? I reckon no matter what system you used England would still have been on top which suggests to me that while the system might have flaws it's fairly accurate.