Jump to content

Lil Early to Say but this England side are showing Flashes of the Dominant Australian side


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

Indian team plays safe cricket., England are playing attacking cricket like australia.

 

In before u say oh they cant do in every condition n all.....yea i knw which is why i didnt mention

 

You are confusing innovation with dominance. What sticks out about this English team is the way they back multi dimensional talent and don’t wait to pull the trigger on any exciting talent.

 

They are trying to build their way to that but far from it.

 

they are trend setters with how they changed selections and talent spotting but you are putting them on the wrong category.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, maniac said:

It is not England’s dominance or anything that needs to be an inspiration but the way they identified mercurial youngsters and threw them in international cricket.

 

Today they are spoilt for choices in all formats. They don’t have a spinner though but I have full faith in their system to produce a few options in the next few years.
 

Here we are struggling to find a back up for most slots given the talent and resources available.

    Not so sure about short format , 

 1.  If you see their side all top performers have been playing for a minimum of 6-8 years and have matured now . Banton may be the odd youngster .

  2. Average age of all these top performers is above 30. 

  3. All of pace bowlers except Archer are above 30 . So you need replacements for all of them except Archer .

  4,  Spinners above 34 -   No possible replacements as of now. 

Edited by prudent_kreeda
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, prudent_kreeda said:

    Not so sure about short format , 

 1.  If you see their side all top performers have been playing for a minimum of 6-8 years and have matured now . Banton may be the odd youngster .

  2. Average age of all these top performers is above 30. 

  3. All of pace bowlers except Archer are above 30 . So you need replacements for all of them except Archer .

  4,  Spinners above 34 -   No possible replacements as of now. 

Bairstow and Stokes are around for 9-10 years,Morgan has probably completed 14 years in International cricket,so they're actually at their peak

Butler iirc debut was back in 2012,Roy isn't in 20s either,2019 WC was their best chance and they did it,2023 Wc will be this core's swan song

Link to comment

In that sense , feel India is better placed . Among the 33+ stars only Rohit will be missed .

Think there are bats who can do equally as well as Shikhar , Kedar and we have ready made replacements . They only need experience at that level now to mature. (Shaw, Gill , Iyer , Pant , Jaiswal ( feel this kid will make it big).

Even in bowling  deepak chahar can replace Bhuvi . 

One among Siani, Kamlesh, Prasidh , Tyagi can replace Shami.  You need only couple to come good .

Even in spin you have  R chahar , Bishnoi  can come good . There are couple of lefties too in the pipeline .

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, prudent_kreeda said:

    Not so sure about short format , 

 1.  If you see their side all top performers have been playing for a minimum of 6-8 years and have matured now . Banton may be the odd youngster .

  2. Average age of all these top performers is above 30. 

  3. All of pace bowlers except Archer are above 30 . So you need replacements for all of them except Archer .

  4,  Spinners above 34 -   No possible replacements as of now. 

Young in terms of experience. For example K.Gowtham is about 30 and is a multi dimensional player but did we take a Punt on him? We did give Dube a shot though for good or bad. Gill hasn’t given a run, Shaw and Samson should have played a lot more matches then they have. Not about the age but taking chance on multi dimensional cricketers which England seems to be doing. They almost have a X1 of mercurial wicket keepers and allrounders. 
 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

Of course it matters. Why else do you think Australia are highly regarded? They decimated India and Sri Lanka in consecutive World Cup finals. Nobody ever since has come close to their level of dominance. Certainly not mental midgets England.

We also lost to Sa in round robins n eng drew game 

But we won WC in 2011

 

Look at pak in 1992 or aus in 1999 

 

So in the end doesnt matter

 

Now aussies being unebetable in 2003 n 2007 , yea i said that this team is showing flashes but not an ATG team

7 hours ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

It's one thing to have a bad day, it's another to self-destruct in pressure cooker situations.

Did they do explode in semi or final of 2019 Wc ?

7 hours ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

England did that. Their batting doesn't have the mental fortitude and versatility that Australia did and their bowling isn't even in the same league.

2011 Australia wasn't peak Australia. Gilchrist, Hayden, Symonds, McGrath, Warne were all gone. Anyway that match was pretty straightforward and wasn't a "choke" by Australia.

yet they won CT in 2009 

So by ur logic india better team winnings against aus in 2011 isnt a choke but england loosing to a better side in 2013 CT is a choke

Link to comment
5 hours ago, maniac said:

Young in terms of experience. For example K.Gowtham is about 30 and is a multi dimensional player but did we take a Punt on him?

K gowtham is competes with spinners not batsman , he is a bowler who can slog so his competition is kulcha n ash n jaddu and he cant get over them

 

5 hours ago, maniac said:

We did give Dube a shot though for good or bad. Gill hasn’t given a run,

Dube competes with hardik or someone like jadhav ....hardik got injured he got in 

5 hours ago, maniac said:

Shaw and Samson should have played a lot more matches then they have.

Competes with top order players where there is no slot, they cant bat at 6 or 7 or doesnt bowl coz u need 5th n 6th bowler

Shaw played when rohit n dhawan got injured in NZ

 

 

how diff is it to understand players are picked for slots not for their % of talent. If hardik gets injured u wont play gill inplace of him - coz he aint a number 7 batsman or doesnt ball 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, maniac said:

You are confusing innovation with dominance. What sticks out about this English team is the way they back multi dimensional talent and don’t wait to pull the trigger on any exciting talent.

 

They are trying to build their way to that but far from it.

 

they are trend setters with how they changed selections and talent spotting but you are putting them on the wrong category.

What sticks out to me is the kind of attacking cricket they are playing and the number of match winners they have one after another

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

What sticks out to me is the kind of attacking cricket they are playing and the number of match winners they have one after another

That is because the moment someone looks like a match winner they give him a shot straight away and play him in all meaningless games including not so important  test matches.


Gill has played what 1 odi.

 

Shaw has barely played LOI’s when he is made for that format.

 

Have we used someone like DK well who is a terrific T20 player?

 

The point I am making is England’s attacking cricket is result of their talent management identifying these exciting talents and giving them a shot while building a core group of players and their back ups.

 

Stokes is out they will play both Woakes and Curran.
 

Bairstow-Butler-Roy-Banton-Hales and they still haven’t given up on Duckett who is talented. Recently played. Any of those combos can be killer. How long did it take for us to play a new combo outside of Dhawan-Rohit. Even Rahul didn’t get enough chances as opener in LOI’s. I am saying the obvious because you will say hey look Dhawan-Rohit-Rahul-Mayank-Shaw we have those players too but it’s not the same and you know it because they hardly were given a run.

 

Curran is being managed beautifully, They are using Ali well and playing him to his strengths.

 

They have 4-5 keepers who can be in the starting X1.

 

A guy like Woakes is struggling to find a slot in the X1. He would walk into the Indian team any day.

 

Broad Anderson are still going well and if they retire tomorrow they still have a compotent bowling attack. What will happen tomorrow if Shami-Umesh and Bhuvi who are in the same age group retire?

 

As I said they are doing great with man management and player management which we lack.

 

They will dominate in 10 years though but they have turned around English cricket which became a joke in the 90’s and to some extent in the 2000’s

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

We also lost to Sa in round robins n eng drew game 

But we won WC in 2011

Look at pak in 1992 or aus in 1999 

So in the end doesnt matter

Nobody thinks of any of those teams of being at the same level as Australia 03/07.

4 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Did they do explode in semi or final of 2019 Wc ?

If they showed "flashes" of peak Australia, their batsmen should have demolished New Zealand just like peak Australia did in the 03/07 finals, shouldn't it?

Also they wouldn't lose to Pakistan and Sri Lanka if they showed those "flashes". Only you know what your definition of "flashes" are. Next you'll say 2017 Bangladesh is comparable to peak Australia because they play attacking cricket and have attacking players like Tamim, Shakib and Mushfiqur in the top order and deep batting line-up with Mahmudullah and Shabbir in the middle order.

4 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

yet they won CT in 2009 

So what? Nobody looks at that 2009 team and says they're at the same level as the 2003/2007 team. Also I didn't say they were suddenly a bad team after all their big teams retiring. They just became more beatable than they used to be. Compare the win record from both those times and you'll know that.

4 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 So by ur logic india better team winnings against aus in 2011 isnt a choke but england loosing to a better side in 2013 CT is a choke

For some reason you have this idea that "choking" means a stronger team losing to a weaker team. That isn't what choking is. "Choking" is withering under pressure or losing even from a winning position just because you couldn't handle the pressure. Even Bangladesh losing to India when they needed 2 runs from 3 balls in the T20 World Cup is choking.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

Nobody thinks of any of those teams of being at the same level as Australia 03/07.

If they showed "flashes" of peak Australia, their batsmen should have demolished New Zealand just like peak Australia did in the 03/07 finals, shouldn't it?

Peak aus 

 

\

 

 

Does this look like demolition to u , they some how snuck through

 

Did that Final pitch looked like a joburg pitch of 2003 where a team can demolish other one?

 

No team will dominate 100 out 100 days , Forget a team thats showing flashes compare to an aTG side 

 

Quote

For some reason you have this idea that "choking" means a stronger team losing to a weaker team. That isn't what choking is. "Choking" is withering under pressure or losing even from a winning position just because you couldn't handle the pressure. Even Bangladesh losing to India when they needed 2 runs from 3 balls in the T20 World Cup is choking.

i know what choking is so i knw the diff between bad day n choking 

bangldesh loosing was choking , a single player like stokes having a bad day is bad day....cant blame whole team....he just didnt execute the plan but the same guy won them wc and chased a total from nowere in ashesh test so how do u label someone a choker on one instance

Edited by Ankit_sharma03
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

to aaj tak IPL men kyun nhin kiya, home conditions only 

Are you seriously comparing IPL with WC. In IPL all teams have home advantage as all teams have Indian players. It is just not RCB who have Indian players only.

 

Now before you ask  them why RCB don't win IPL, it is because RCB has rubbish bowling attack over the years. Run leaking machines.

 

In international cricket, he has Bumrah and Shami. RCB don't have them. Shami has been good in IPL but still Indian main team bowling attack is way better than RCB. It's a no brainer.

 

 

Edited by Straight Drive
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Straight Drive said:

Are you seriously comparing IPL with WC. In IPL all teams have home advantage as all teams have Indian players. It is just not RCB who have Indian players only.

coz its all about nerves either u knw how to win a tournament either u dont

ganguly was another guy who just didnt 

1 minute ago, Straight Drive said:

Now before you ask  them why RCB don't win IPL, it is because RCB has rubbish bowling attack over the years. Run leaking machines.

So who is stopping them for years to buy proper players, in ipl u can buy ...in national team u cant help much with supply of talent 

1 minute ago, Straight Drive said:

In international cricket, he has Bumrah and Shami. RCB don't have them. 

yet he lost to pakistan in 2017 a much weaker team, on whom we had a psychological advantage in world tournaments 

 

Advantage disadvantage dont matter if u dnt have the nerves , the guy is bundle of negative energy which is worst in pressure games.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

coz its all about nerves either u knw how to win a tournament either u dont

ganguly was another guy who just didnt 

So who is stopping them for years to buy proper players, in ipl u can buy ...in national team u cant help much with supply of talent 

yet he lost to pakistan in 2017 a much weaker team, on whom we had a psychological advantage in world tournaments 

 

Advantage disadvantage dont matter if u dnt have the nerves , the guy is bundle of negative energy which is worst in pressure games.

I am not that interested in finding out when RCB team does not picks good bowlers.  It's his and RCB management problem to deal with. Let them deal with it or not, doesn't matters.

 

Secondly, I don't  want to mix IPL in a discussion about WC. 

 

Thirdly, I have not seen the win loss ratios at home, but I do feel it is heavily tilted in favour of home teams.

 

More batsmen have better batting average at home than away. Home advantage is a major factor although it is not a guarantee that home team wins 100% of matches. It does increases the  probability and percentage of wins in home conditions. We are not going to get easily a repeat of 1983 which was away win. The best chance is a home tournament. Dhoni did it at home. Team India has another hit at home soon.

Link to comment

@Ankit_sharma03
do you think batsmen falling like pack of cards from a dominant position is choke job only?

Bowlers also do choke,you have made it subjective,but it's not buddy

Perhaps this is the case why you think Stokes giving away 24 runs in space of 4 deliveries wasn't one

It was clear case of choking,he just had to bowl four proper deliveries even had he conceded 4 fours it would have been fine

Your understanding of choking is flawed

Edited by Suhaan
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...